Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.) · 2013
Cost-effectiveness of using Quantiferon Gold (QFT-G)® versus tuberculin skin test (TST) among U.S. and foreign born populations at a public health department clinic with a low prevalence of tuberculosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Iqbal Ayesha Z, Leighton Jenelle, Anthony John, Knaup Richard C, Peters Eleanor B, Bailey Thomas C
Аннотация
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.
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.