OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost benefit to routinely using QFT-G versus the standard TST for screening U.S. and foreign born populations at a public health department clinic with a low prevalence of tuberculosis. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: A comparative cost analysis of the monetization between QFT-G and TST was conducted: Data from the health department's Chest Clinic patients seen in 2007 were used to model cost predictions. MEASURES: The net costs of screening, x-rays, the standard 9 months of latent tuberculosis infection treatment, laboratory, and administration for U.S. born patients and foreign born patients were investigated. RESULTS: There are no apparent cost savings for U.S. born individuals, but due to the higher specificity of QFT-G for foreign born BCG-vaccinated individuals, there are unnecessary expenditures associated with the higher number of false positives incurred when using TST compared with QFT-G on 1,000 foreign born individuals (69%, 18%). CONCLUSION: QFT-G is cost-effective and should be used at local health department clinics that want to achieve savings in screening and treating those suspected of having TB infection, especially for high-risk populations such as foreign born individuals.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost benefit to routinely using QFT-G versus the standard TST for screening U.S. and foreign born populations at a public health department clinic with a low prevalence of tuberculosis. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: A comparative cost analysis of the monetization between QFT-G and TST was conducted: Data from the health department's Chest Clinic patients seen in 2007 were used to model cost predictions. MEASURES: The net costs of screening, x-rays, the standard 9 months of latent tuberculosis infection treatment, laboratory, and administration for U.S. born patients and foreign born patients were investigated. RESULTS: There are no apparent cost savings for U.S. born individuals, but due to the higher specificity of QFT-G for foreign born BCG-vaccinated individuals, there are unnecessary expenditures associated with the higher number of false positives incurred when using TST compared with QFT-G on 1,000 foreign born individuals (69%, 18%). CONCLUSION: QFT-G is cost-effective and should be used at local health department clinics that want to achieve savings in screening and treating those suspected of having TB infection, especially for high-risk populations such as foreign born individuals.
Authors: P B Shete; D Boccia; P Dhavan; N Gebreselassie; K Lönnroth; S Marks; A Matteelli; D L Posey; M J van der Werf; C A Winston; C Lienhardt Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: H Alsdurf; O Oxlade; M Adjobimey; F Ahmad Khan; M Bastos; N Bedingfield; A Benedetti; D Boafo; T N Buu; L Chiang; V Cook; D Fisher; G J Fox; F Fregonese; P Hadisoemarto; J C Johnston; F Kassa; R Long; S Moayedi Nia; T A Nguyen; J Obeng; C Paulsen; K Romanowski; R Ruslami; K Schwartzman; H Sohn; E Strumpf; A Trajman; C Valiquette; L Yaha; D Menzies Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Christina Greenaway; Manish Pareek; Claire-Nour Abou Chakra; Moneeza Walji; Iuliia Makarenko; Balqis Alabdulkarim; Catherine Hogan; Ted McConnell; Brittany Scarfo; Robin Christensen; Anh Tran; Nick Rowbotham; Marieke J van der Werf; Teymur Noori; Kevin Pottie; Alberto Matteelli; Dominik Zenner; Rachael L Morton Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2018-04