Literature DB >> 25352886

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening immigrants schemes for tuberculosis (TB) on arrival from high TB endemic countries to low TB prevalent countries.

A F N S Sanneh1, A M Al-Shareef1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Immigrants to developed countries are a major source of TB. Therefore amongst strategies adopted for TB control in developed countries include; 1) Screening immigrants at ports of entry referred to as "Port of Arrival Screening" (PoA) and 2) Passive screening (PS) for TB which means screening immigrants through general practices, hospitals, chest-clinics and emergency departments. Evidence of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of these strategies is not consistent.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate efficiency of active PoA TB screening for immigrants from TB endemic-regions compared with Passive Screening of immigrant-populations from TB endemic-regions.
METHODS: Major electronic-databases and reference lists of relevant studies were searched. Experts of immigrants' TB screening were contacted for additional studies published or unpublished. Systematic search of major databases identified only retrospective cohort-studies. Their qualities were assessed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodological checklist for comparative cohort-studies.
RESULTS: Systematic electronic searches identified 1443 citations. Of these 74 studies were retrieved for evaluation against the review's inclusion/exclusion criteria (see study inclusion/exclusion criteria). Four studies met the inclusion criteria (figure 2) which were low in the evidence hierarchy of primary effectiveness studies and had heterogeneities between them. Thus descriptive data-synthesis was performed. Proportionately PoA screening had the lowest percentage of receipt of tuberculin skin test (TST) and the highest percentage of non-attendance for TST reading (table 2). Active PoA screening reduced infectiousness by 34% compared to 30% by passive screening and new entrants screened at PoA were 80% less likely to be hospitalised Odds ratio (OR) = 0.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1 - 0.2). [Table: see text]. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: One cost effectiveness analysis was found that compared the costs of; active PoA screening, general practice screening and homeless screening groups. The cost of detecting a case of TB were; £1.26, £13.17 and £96.36 for PS, homeless screening and active PoA screening respectively. The cost of preventing a case of TB were; £6.32, £23.00 and £10.00 for PS, homeless screening and PoA screening respectively, showing there is little difference between the different strategies.
CONCLUSION: Active PoA screening is worth doing with significant benefits including early identification of risk groups with possible timely treatment/chemoprophylaxis intervention, prevention of transmission by significantly reducing infectiousness with subsequent avoidance of hospitalisation in active PoA screening group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25352886      PMCID: PMC4209663          DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v14i3.23

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Afr Health Sci        ISSN: 1680-6905            Impact factor:   0.927


  22 in total

1.  Comparison of cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis screening of close contacts and foreign-born populations.

Authors:  K Dasgupta; K Schwartzman; R Marchand; T N Tennenbaum; P Brassard; D Menzies
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 21.405

2.  Pulmonary tuberculosis among political asylum seekers screened at Heathrow Airport, London, 1995-9.

Authors:  M E J Callister; J Barringer; S T Thanabalasingam; R Gair; R N Davidson
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 9.139

3.  Screening immigrants to Canada for tuberculosis: chest radiography or tuberculin skin testing?

Authors:  Dick Menzies
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-11-11       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Screening for tuberculosis: the port of arrival scheme compared with screening in general practice and the homeless.

Authors:  G H Bothamley; J P Rowan; C J Griffiths; M Beeks; M McDonald; E Beasley; C van den Bosch; G Feder
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 9.139

Review 5.  Overseas screening for tuberculosis in immigrants and refugees to the United States: current status.

Authors:  N J Binkin; P L Zuber; C D Wells; M A Tipple; K G Castro
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 9.079

6.  Mandatory screening and treatment of immigrants for latent tuberculosis in the USA: just restraint?

Authors:  R Coker; K L van Weezenbeek
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 25.071

Review 7.  Standardized tuberculosis treatment outcome monitoring in Europe. Recommendations of a Working Group of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Region of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (IUATLD) for uniform reporting by cohort analysis of treatment outcome in tuberculosis patients.

Authors:  J Veen; M Raviglione; H L Rieder; G B Migliori; P Graf; M Grzemska; R Zalesky
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 16.671

8.  Infectious disease screening for refugees resettled in the United States.

Authors:  Elizabeth D Barnett
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2004-08-27       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Geographical distribution of tuberculosis notifications in national surveys of England and Wales in 1988 and 1993: report of the Public Health Laboratory Service/British Thoracic Society/Department of Health Collaborative Group.

Authors:  L P Ormerod; A Charlett; C Gilham; J H Darbyshire; J M Watson
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 9.139

Review 10.  Tuberculosis and migration. The Mitchell Lecture 1994.

Authors:  P D Davies
Journal:  J R Coll Physicians Lond       Date:  1995 Mar-Apr
View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Essential healthcare services provided to conflict-affected internally displaced populations in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

Authors:  Winifred Ekezie; Enemona Emmanuel Adaji; Rachael L Murray
Journal:  Health Promot Perspect       Date:  2020-01-28

2.  Pathogens, prejudice, and politics: the role of the global health community in the European refugee crisis.

Authors:  Mishal S Khan; Anna Osei-Kofi; Abbas Omar; Hilary Kirkbride; Anthony Kessel; Aula Abbara; David Heymann; Alimuddin Zumla; Osman Dar
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 25.071

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.