Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2004
Screening and treatment of latent tuberculosis among healthcare workers at low, moderate, and high risk for tuberculosis exposure: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Salpeter Shelley R, Salpeter Edwin E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cost-effective screening and treatment strategies for healthcare workers (HCWs) at risk for tuberculosis exposure.
DESIGN: A Markov model was developed to track three hypothetical cohorts of HCWs at low, moderate, and high risk for tuberculosis exposure. For those found to be tuberculin reactors at entry, the choice was for isoniazid treatment or no treatment. For those without tuberculin reactivity, the choice of screening intervals was 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, or 5 years. Outcomes measured were tuberculosis cases, death, life expectancy, and cost. Assumptions were derived from published data and analyses.
RESULTS: Treatment of initial reactors with isoniazid in all three risk groups was associated with a net savings of $14,800 to $15,700 for each tuberculosis case prevented. For those without evidence of infection at entry, the most cost-effective screening interval was 1 year for high-risk groups, 2 years for moderate-risk groups, and 5 years for low-risk groups, with a net savings $0.20 to $26 per HCW per year. Screening at a more frequent interval was still cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: For HCWs found to be tuberculin reactors, treatment of their latent infection is to their benefit and is associated with a net cost-savings. Regular tuberculin screening of HCWs can be cost-effective or result in a net cost-savings. Each institution could use its own skin test surveillance data to create an optimum screening program for its employees. However, for most HCWs, a 1-year screening interval would be a cost-effective and safe choice.
DESIGN: A Markov model was developed to track three hypothetical cohorts of HCWs at low, moderate, and high risk for tuberculosis exposure. For those found to be tuberculin reactors at entry, the choice was for isoniazid treatment or no treatment. For those without tuberculin reactivity, the choice of screening intervals was 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, or 5 years. Outcomes measured were tuberculosis cases, death, life expectancy, and cost. Assumptions were derived from published data and analyses.
RESULTS: Treatment of initial reactors with isoniazid in all three risk groups was associated with a net savings of $14,800 to $15,700 for each tuberculosis case prevented. For those without evidence of infection at entry, the most cost-effective screening interval was 1 year for high-risk groups, 2 years for moderate-risk groups, and 5 years for low-risk groups, with a net savings $0.20 to $26 per HCW per year. Screening at a more frequent interval was still cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: For HCWs found to be tuberculin reactors, treatment of their latent infection is to their benefit and is associated with a net cost-savings. Regular tuberculin screening of HCWs can be cost-effective or result in a net cost-savings. Each institution could use its own skin test surveillance data to create an optimum screening program for its employees. However, for most HCWs, a 1-year screening interval would be a cost-effective and safe choice.