PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of ajrccmIssue Featuring ArticlePublisher's Version of ArticleSubmissionsAmerican Thoracic SocietyAmerican Thoracic SocietyAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
 
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. Sep 1, 2011; 184(5): 590–601.
Published online Sep 1, 2011. doi:  10.1164/rccm.201101-0181OC
PMCID: PMC3175546
Priorities for Screening and Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in the United States
Benjamin P. Linas,corresponding author1,2 Angela Y. Wong,3,4 Kenneth A. Freedberg,2–5 and C. Robert Horsburgh, Jr.2
1Section of Infectious Diseases, Boston Medical Center
2Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health
3Divisions of Infectious Diseases and
4General Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital; and the
5Harvard Center for AIDS Research (CFAR), Boston, Massachusetts
corresponding authorCorresponding author.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Benjamin P. Linas, M.D., M.P.H., HIV Epidemiology and Outcomes Research Unit, Boston Medical Center, Section of Infectious Disease, Evans Biomedical Research Center, 650 Albany St. Rm 647, Boston, MA 02118. E-mail: benjamin.linas/at/bmc.org
Received January 31, 2011; Accepted April 30, 2011.
Rationale: To improve the effectiveness of tuberculosis (TB) control programs in the United States by identifying cost-effective priorities for screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI).
Objectives: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of LTBI screening using the tuberculin skin test (TST) and interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs).
Methods: A Markov model of screening for LTBI with TST and IGRA in risk-groups considered in current LTBI screening guidelines.
Measurements and Main Results: In all risk-groups, TST and IGRA screening resulted in increased mean life expectancy, ranging from 0.03–0.24 life-months per person screened. IGRA screening resulted in greater life expectancy gains than TST. Screening always cost more than not screening, but IGRA was cost-saving compared with TST in some groups. Four patterns of cost-effectiveness emerged, related to four risk categories. (1) Individuals at highest risk of TB reactivation (close contacts and those infected with HIV): the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of IGRA compared with TST was less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. (2) The foreign-born: IGRA was cost-saving compared with TST and cost-effective compared with no screening (ICER <$100,000 per QALY gained). (3) Vulnerable populations (e.g., homeless, drug user, or former prisoner): the ICER of TST screening was approximately $100,000–$150,000 per QALY gained, but IGRA was not cost-effective. (4) Medical comorbidities (e.g., diabetes): the ICER of screening with TST or IGRA was greater than $100,000 per QALY.
Conclusions: LTBI screening guidelines could make progress toward TB elimination by prioritizing screening for close contacts, those infected with HIV, and the foreign-born regardless of time living in the United States. For these groups, IGRA screening was more cost-effective than TST screening.
Keywords: latent tuberculosis, cost-effectiveness, tuberculin skin test, interferon-γ release assay
At a Glance Commentary
Scientific Knowledge on the Subject
Previous studies have examined priorities for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) screening and treatment, and several have found that isoniazid therapy for low-risk tuberculin reactors is cost-effective, and even cost-saving in some populations. These studies, however, used estimates of the prevalence of LTBI and rates of reactivation tuberculosis (TB) observed in the 1950s and 1960s, and may not reflect current epidemiologic trends. Further, prior studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) have focused on select risk-groups and did not prioritize screening among the many risk-groups potentially eligible for screening.
What This Study Adds to the Field
This study uses cost-effectiveness methodologies to directly compare tuberculin skin test and IGRA screening in each of the risk-groups considered by current United States LTBI screening guidelines. The results identify optimal risk-groups for LTBI screening and define priorities for the use of IGRAs. TB control programs and guideline panels can use these data to make additional progress toward the ultimate goal of TB elimination.
Reactivation of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) accounts for approximately 70% of cases of active tuberculosis (TB) in the United States (1, 2). Screening and treatment for LTBI is therefore a cornerstone of the strategy for the elimination of TB disease in the United States (3, 4). Previous studies have examined priorities for LTBI screening and treatment, and several have found that isoniazid (INH) therapy for low-risk tuberculin reactors is cost-effective, and even cost-saving in some populations (58). These studies, however, used estimates of the prevalence of LTBI and rates of reactivation TB observed in the 1950s and 1960s, and may not reflect current epidemiologic trends (911). Furthermore, given the development of interferon-γ release assays (IGRA) as a screening test for LTBI, it is important to expand the investigation to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of both tuberculin skin test (TST) and IGRA screening (4). Although prior studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of IGRA, they focused on select risk-groups, and did not prioritize screening among the many risk-groups currently recommended for screening (1214).
Recent reports indicate a lower prevalence of LTBI, lower rate of progression to active TB, and higher proportion of discontinuation of therapy for LTBI than previously assumed (1520). Further, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released updated guidelines for using IGRA to screen for Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection, recommending both TST and IGRA in groups at higher risk for developing active TB (4). Given this evolution of understanding and recommendations, an examination of the cost-effectiveness of TST and IGRA screening for LTBI could provide important insights into the efficient design of programs to reduce the burden of TB in the United States.
Some of the results of these studies have been previously reported in the form of an abstract (21).
We constructed a Markov model using TreeAge Pro 2009 (Williamstown, MA) computer software to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using either TST or IGRA to screen for LTBI in each of the CDC-defined risk-groups referenced in current United States LTBI screening guidelines (3, 4). Risk-groups included recent immigrant adults and children; foreign-born residents living in the United States for more than 5 years (stratified by age); close-contact adults and children; individuals infected with HIV; the homeless; injection drug users; former prisoners; gastrectomy patients; underweight patients; and persons with silicosis, diabetes, and end-stage renal disease (Table 1). For each risk-group, we compared the number needed to screen to prevent one case of active TB, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-expectancy, lifetime medical costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of three strategies for screening for LTBI: (1) no screening, (2) using TST to screen, or (3) using IGRA to screen. Mortality attributable to causes other than TB was a function of age and sex, and was adjusted to reflect differing competing risks of death between risk-groups. The model included direct healthcare costs expressed in 2011 US dollars (22). We applied a 3% discount rate to future costs and benefits (23). In addition to the description below, further details of the model structure and parameter calculations are available in the online supplement.
TABLE 1.
TABLE 1.
CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH COHORT EVALUATED IN A COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF SCREENING FOR LATENT TUBERCULOSIS INFECTION IN THE UNITED STATES
Model Summary
The model began with a decision between not screening for LTBI, screening with TST, or screening with IGRA. To model less than optimal follow-up with TST, only 88% of individuals who had the TST planted returned for reading (13, 24). Individuals who did not return for TST reading were not eligible for INH therapy. For both TST and IGRA screening, 90% of patients with a positive test started INH therapy (Table 2) (19).
TABLE 2.
TABLE 2.
SELECT INPUT PARAMETERS FOR A COST-EFFECTIVENESS MODEL OF SCREENING FOR LATENT TUBERCULOSIS IN THE UNITED STATES
Prevalence of LTBI.
The model distinguished between an individual's true LTBI status and clinical knowledge of LTBI status attained through screening test results. Thus, the input parameters required estimates of the prevalence of true LTBI (as opposed to prevalence of positive skin tests) in each risk-group (Table 1). We used published estimates of TST test characteristics and reports of risk-group–specific prevalence of a positive TST to estimate the prevalence of true LTBI in each risk-group (4, 17, 2529):
equation m1
where:
equation m2
equation m3
equation m4
Test characteristics for TST and IGRA.
The base case scenario assumed that TST was 92% specific in foreign-born individuals, and 98% specific in individuals in the United States (Table 2) (4, 2529). IGRA was 99% specific in all risk-groups (4, 2529). TST was more sensitive than IGRA for all risk-groups (89% vs. 83% sensitivity) (4, 26, 28, 3033). Patients with a positive screening test were eligible to start INH prophylaxis regardless of their LTBI status. A proportion of patients with a positive screening test started INH therapy for a planned 9-month course. In sensitivity analyses, we varied assumptions about test characteristics.
INH prophylaxis.
While taking INH, patients faced an age-stratified, monthly risk of developing nonfatal or fatal INH-related hepatitis (34). Patients taking INH also had a monthly probability of stopping therapy for reasons other than toxicity (nonadherence) (35). We modeled the efficacy of INH therapy as a relative decrease in the rate of reactivation TB. The protective effect of INH was as a function of the length of treatment completed (Table 2) (36).
Risk of reactivation TB.
Only those with underlying LTBI (and not those with a false-positive screening test) were at risk for developing reactivation TB. To estimate the rate of reactivation in patients with LTBI, we used a four-step approach. First, we estimated the rate of reactivation TB in individuals with a positive TST, using the following, previously published formula (18, 19):
equation m5
We used CDC surveillance data of the number of cases of active TB in the United States and percent of TB cases that are nonclustered, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey estimates of the prevalence of positive TST, and United States census population estimates to inform each variable in the equation (15, 17, 20).
Second, we applied risk-group–specific relative risks of reactivation to this general population rate to calculate risk-group–specific reactivation given a positive TST (18, 19, 37). Third, to calculate the rate of reactivation TB in individuals with LTBI (as opposed to in those with a positive TST) we used the following formula:
equation m6
where:
equation m7
equation m8
equation m9
equation m10
equation m11
Fourth, we accounted for self-cure of LTBI and resultant reductions in risk of reactivation with time. Approximately 10% of TST-positive persons lose their skin test reactivity over a decade of follow-up. Such persons are believed to have self-cured, and they have no individual-risk of reactivation. Among those who remain skin test positive, however, the risk of reactivation remains constant (38). The effect is that over time, the group-risk among all those who had a positive skin test at the beginning of the observation declines by 10% each year. We modeled this phenomenon by assuming a 10% reduction in the rate of reactivation each decade (18, 39).
For close contacts, we modeled early latent and late latent phases of infection. The high rate of reactivation disease in the early latent phase decreased exponentially over the course of the first 10 years down to the risk of a patient with a nonconversion skin test, and subsequently further decreased 10% every 10 years (18, 37).
Secondary cases of active TB.
Each case of reactivation TB resulted in 0.31 cases of secondary TB distributed throughout the expected lifetime of contact cases (40). We included the present value of lost life expectancy and increased costs attributable to all secondary cases of TB in cost-effectiveness calculations.
Quality of life.
Quality of life parameters were based on published estimates collected using the Medical Outcomes Study SF-36 and the EQ-5D (4143). In the base case analysis, we assumed that quality of life with cured TB was the same as that for healthy individuals. In sensitivity analyses, we varied this assumption to allow for long-term quality of life decrements for patients with cured TB.
Costs.
Costs were expressed in 2011 U.S. dollars (22, 44, 92–94). Costs included such components as nursing and physician visits, diagnostic tests, medications, hospitalizations, contact tracing, and directly observed therapy (Table 2). In the base case analysis, we assumed that potential targets for screening were already identified and managed by existing resources, such as primary care providers and community health centers, and therefore did not include programmatic costs associated with expanded screening interventions. In sensitivity analyses, we relaxed this assumption by varying the cost of screening. Risk-group–specific healthcare costs not related to LTBI were informed by the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and published reports of the relative increase in healthcare costs for specific risk-groups (4552).
Base Case Analyses
For each risk-group, we simulated the lifetime progression of a cohort of patients from the time of screening to death. We compared three screening strategies: (1) no screening, (2) screening with TST, and (3) screening with IGRA. We used both $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and $100,000 per QALY gained thresholds to define screening as cost-effective (53). To provide an estimate of the absolute public health benefit of screening, we used published estimates of the number of individuals from each risk-group living in the United States (N) and model-based estimates of the number needed to screen to prevent one case of active TB (NNS) to estimate the total number of cases of active TB that could be prevented by screening every individual in a given risk-group (total cases preventable = N/NNS) (5465).
Sensitivity Analyses
We performed a series of one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses in which we altered the value of all model parameters through their plausible ranges to explore the role of uncertainty in key model parameters and better understand the factors that drive the cost-effectiveness of LTBI screening (66). Sensitivity analyses paid particular focus on uncertainty in rates of reactivation TB, TST, and IGRA test characteristics, and IGRA cost. We repeated the base case analysis using two different estimates of TB reactivation: the higher rate of reactivation that informs current guidelines, 0.11 cases per 100 person-years (prior estimate); and the rate of reactivation observed in the most recent Glades Health Survey, 0.040 cases per 100 person-years (low estimate) (18, 19). We also performed a series of two-way sensitivity analyses in which we varied the test characteristics of each screening test to observe how assumptions about sensitivity and specificity affected the cost-effectiveness of each test. In addition, we performed a series of analyses in which we simultaneously varied TST test characteristics and IGRA cost to understand the relationship between the relative performance of IGRA and TST, IGRA cost, and cost-effectiveness.
Compared with no screening, screening with TST resulted in undiscounted life-expectancy gains between 0.00 and 0.24 life months (0.00–0.13 discounted quality-adjusted life months) at an incremental cost from $50–$140 depending on the risk-group. Compared with TST screening, IGRA screening resulted in undiscounted life expectancy gains of 0.00–0.01 life months (0.00–0.008 discounted quality-adjusted life months) at incremental costs ranging from a savings of $10 to a cost of $20. The cost-effectiveness of screening for LTBI with TST or IGRA varied by risk-group, with four patterns of cost-effectiveness emerging related to four categories of risk: (1) patients at the highest risk of reactivation (close contacts and those living with HIV infection; (2) the foreign-born (both recent immigrants to the United States and those living in the United States for >5 yr); (3) vulnerable persons (the homeless, injection drug users, and former prisoners); and (4) individuals with chronic medical conditions (Table 3).
TABLE 3.
TABLE 3.
BASE CASE RESULTS OF AN ANALYSIS OF SCREENING FOR LTBI IN THE UNITED STATES
Patients at the Highest Risk of Reactivation
In close-contact children and adults and in individuals infected with HIV, the ICER of screening with TST compared with no screening was less than $50,000 per QALY, as was the ICER of screening with IGRA compared with TST. Although the sensitivity of IGRA was slightly lower than that of TST, because IGRA screening requires only one visit to obtain and interpret results, IGRA minimized loss to follow-up and increased receipt of test results. Thus, IGRA identified a greater number of patients with LTBI than TST screening identified, and IGRA screening was associated with longer life expectancy.
Recent Immigrants and Foreign-born Residents Living in the United States for More Than 5 Years
In recent immigrants to the United States and foreign-born residents who have lived in the United States for more than 5 years (foreign-born residents), IGRA screening resulted in either cost savings compared with TST, or in extended life expectancy with a lower cost per QALY gained compared with TST. Thus, IGRA dominated TST, meaning that any resources dedicated to using TST to screen would be better used providing IGRA screening.
In these risk-groups, IGRA dominated TST for two reasons. First, because IGRA reduced loss to follow-up, it functioned as a more sensitive screening test than TST, and led to longer mean life expectancy. Second, IGRA was substantially more specific than TST (99% vs. 92% specific), and therefore provided cost savings by minimizing the number of patients unnecessarily treated for LTBI.
The ICER of IGRA screening compared with no screening was less than $50,000 per QALY gained for recent immigrant adults and was less than $100,000 per QALY gained for recent immigrant children and foreign-born residents up to age 45 years. The ICER of IGRA screening compared with no screening for foreign-born residents age 45–64 years was $103,000 per QALY gained. In addition, as a result of a large population of foreign-born United States residents, and a relatively small number needed to screen to prevent one case of active TB, screening the foreign-born living in the United States for more than 5 years could potentially prevent more than 65,000 cases of active TB over the lifetime of those individuals, one of the largest potential absolute impacts of any risk-group (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Number of cases of active tuberculosis (TB) preventable through latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) screening in each risk-group considered by current United States LTBI screening guidelines. The bar graph depicts the absolute number of cases of active (more ...)
Vulnerable Populations
The ICER of screening with TST compared with no screening was $95,000 per QALY gained in the homeless, $104,600 per QALY gained in injection drug users, and $147,600 per QALY gained in former prisoners. The ICER of IGRA was $194,300 for the homeless and more than $200,000 per QALY gained in injection drug users and former prisoners. In these risk-groups, IGRA continued to have a better case detection rate than TST, but improved case detection resulted in little life-expectancy gain because the risk of reactivation TB was small, and the rate of INH completion low.
Individuals with Chronic Medical Conditions
In patients taking immunosuppressive medications, the ICER of screening with TST compared with no screening was $129,000 per QALY gained. In all other risk-groups, including underweight patients, gastrectomy patients, and patients with silicosis, diabetes, and end-stage renal disease, the ICER of using TST to screen for LTBI compared with no screening was greater than $200,000 per QALY gained and the ICER of using IGRA to screen for LTBI compared with using TST was greater than $300,000 per QALY gained. In these risk-groups, the prevalence of LTBI was low, and the risk of reactivation TB was reduced by competing risks of mortality, such that no screening test was cost-effective.
Sensitivity Analyses on Rate of Reactivation TB
When we assumed the lower rate of reactivation TB observed in the Glades Health Survey (low estimate), the ICER of IGRA screening remained less than $100,000 per QALY gained in close-contact adults and children, recent immigrant adults, and individuals infected with HIV. The ICER of both TST and IGRA screening was greater than $100,000 per QALY gained in all other risk-groups (Table 4). However, assuming the higher rate of reactivation that informs current United States screening guidelines (prior estimate), the ICER of TST screening was less than $100,000 per QALY gained in the homeless, injection drug users, and patients taking immunosuppressive medications. The ICER of IGRA screening was less than $100,000 per QALY gained in close-contact children and adults, individuals infected with HIV, recent immigrants to the United States, and foreign-born United States residents up to age 65 years (Table 4).
TABLE 4.
TABLE 4.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF SCREENING FOR LATENT TUBERCULOSIS INFECTION USING TST OR IGRA UNDER VARYING ESTIMATES OF THE RATE OF REACTIVATION TB
Sensitivity Analyses on TST and IGRA Test Characteristics
In recent immigrants and foreign-born United States residents, screening with either TST or IGRA was cost-effective across all plausible estimates of sensitivity. The ICER of IGRA compared with TST was sensitive to TST specificity, but remained less than $100,000 per QALY gained across a wide range of assumptions about test characteristics (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Two-way sensitivity analysis of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) using tuberculin skin test (TST) or interferon-γ release assays (IGRA) in foreign-born residents living in the United (more ...)
In close-contact adults, the impact of false-negative results was larger than that of false-positive results and test sensitivity determined cost-effectiveness. TST sensitivity, however, was mitigated by imperfect follow-up for TST results. Thus, IGRA remained cost-effective as long as the sensitivity of IGRA was greater than 79% (base case 83%) (see Figure E3 in the online supplement). If we assumed that 100% of patients returned for TST reading, however, TST was more sensitive than IGRA and provided greater life expectancy at lower cost (Table E1).
Sensitivity Analyses on Cost of IGRA
In foreign-born residents living in the United States for more than 5 years, age 25–44 years, the ICER of IGRA compared with TST screening was less than $100,000 per QALY gained across a range of estimates of IGRA test cost and TST test specificity. In the base case (TST specificity in the foreign-born = 92%), IGRA screening remained cost-effective up to an IGRA test cost of $64 (base case assumption $52). If the specificity of TST screening is only 85%, IGRA screening remained cost-effective up to an IGRA test cost of $83 (see Figure E4).
Additional Sensitivity Analyses
Patient age affected cost-effectiveness results through its impact on the lifetime risk of reactivation. When we increased the mean age to 65 years, screening remained cost-effective only for close-contact adults of a case of active TB and persons infected with HIV (Table E2).
INH toxicity had little impact on the cost-effectiveness of screening. When we both halved or doubled the rate of INH toxicity, the ICER of screening did not shift across the $100,000 per QALY threshold for any risk-group (Table E3).
Rates of INH treatment initiation and adherence to INH therapy had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness in the homeless, injection drug users, and former prisoners, where very low rates of INH adherence reduced cost-effectiveness compared with the base case scenario (Tables E4 and E5).
The cost-effectiveness of screening was also sensitive to changes in estimates of the quality of life in patients who recovered from active TB. In the base case, we assumed that patients cured of active TB returned to full health. If a history of cured active TB was associated with a life-long 10% decrement in quality of life, the cost-effectiveness of screening with either IGRA or TST was less than $100,000 per QALY gained for all cohorts except foreign-born United States residents aged 65 years or older, and patients with silicosis, diabetes, and end-stage renal disease (Table E6).
As the incidence of active TB in the United States declines, targeted screening for LTBI plays an increasingly important role in TB elimination (3). This analysis demonstrates that screening strategies can be improved to ensure a more efficient use of limited TB control resources. The results demonstrate that the ICER of IGRA compared with TST screening is less than $50,000 per QALY gained in close contacts of a case of active TB and individuals infected with HIV. In the foreign-born, both recent immigrants and those living in the United States for more than 5 years, IGRA screening is cost-saving compared with TST screening and the ICER of IGRA screening compared with no screening is less than $100,000 per QALY gained. The ICER of TST screening is less than $100,000 per QALY in the homeless, but IGRA is less economically attractive. Screening for LTBI with TST or IGRA is not cost-effective in any other risk-group currently recommended for screening by United States guidelines (3).
This analysis has two important implications for addressing TB elimination in the United States. First, current guidelines recommend screening and treatment only for foreign-born persons living in the United States for 5 years or less (3). Nearly half of United States TB cases, however, occur in foreign-born persons who have been in the United States for more than 5 years, and most of these cases represent reactivation of LTBI (67). This analysis demonstrates that screening the 21 million current foreign-born United States residents living in the United States for more than 5 years could prevent approximately 65,000 cases of active TB over the lifetime of those individuals, at an incremental life-time cost of $2 billion compared with no screening. Although the total cost seems high, it corresponds to a cost of approximately $100 per person. In addition, screening such individuals represents good “value for money” in that the ICER of screening the foreign-born compares favorably with that of other well-accepted screening interventions (updated to 2011 $US), such as annual digital mammography for women aged 40–50 years compared with annual film mammography ($29,900 per QALY gained), and colonoscopy every 10 years in individuals over 50 years compared with annual fecal occult blood testing ($14,900 per QALY gained) (68, 69). At the same time, screening in many risk-groups currently recommended for screening prevents fewer cases of TB at a higher cost per QALY gained. Screening foreign-born persons who have lived in the United States for more than 5 years would likely improve progress toward TB elimination in the United States.
Second, the analysis provides evidence to support movement toward IGRA screening for high-risk groups, including close-contact adults and children, individuals infected with HIV, recent immigrants, and foreign-born United States residents. The improved specificity and test completion rate for IGRA compared with TST make IGRA useful for screening in these high-risk groups. However, IGRA is not cost-effective in other groups, and does not make screening cost-effective in risk-groups for which screening with TST is not cost-effective.
There are several limitations to the analysis. First, there are no prospective observational data in the United States to inform the rate of reactivation TB. The availability of INH prophylaxis for patients with identified LTBI renders natural history cohorts unethical. We used established methods of estimating TB reactivation from public health data, however, and varied the rate of reactivation TB widely in one-way sensitivity analyses. The rank order of cost-effectiveness of screening in various risk-groups, and the cost-effectiveness of IGRA compared with TST, were robust to this uncertainty.
In addition, there is no gold standard to confirm the diagnosis of LTBI. Estimates of TST and IGRA test characteristics are therefore inherently uncertain (4). We used the best available estimates of IGRA and TST test characteristics, however, and included sensitivity analyses to both explore the impact of test characteristics on cost-effectiveness and assess the stability of base case results to parameter uncertainty. The finding that screening foreign-born United States residents with either IGRA or TST is cost-effective compared with no screening was stable across all plausible assumptions about TST and IGRA test specificity. The cost-effectiveness of IGRA compared with TST was more dependent on the relative characteristics of each test, but was stable across most reasonable estimates of both sensitivity and specificity.
Third, costs in the model included direct medical costs, but not indirect costs, such as lost productivity time and transportation costs. The complexity of accurately assessing such costs for an extremely heterogeneous set of risk-groups made including them infeasible. Perhaps most importantly, however, introducing such costs into the model would generate ethical concerns, in that the time of vulnerable populations and those with comorbidities that restrict their ability to work would be valued less than that of healthy and less disadvantaged populations.
Policy makers and United States guidelines panels can use these results to prioritize groups for targeted LTBI screening. Seeking to maximize the public health impact of TB control resources, programs should prioritize screening foreign-born United States residents up to age 45 years, regardless of their time living in the United States. Further, programs should consider using IGRA screening in close contacts, individuals infected with HIV, and foreign-born persons, but not for other risk-groups. This approach would improve the efficiency of TB control programs, and maximize the impact of public health resources in the effort to eradicate TB infection in the United States.
Supplementary Material
[Online Supplement]
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Jennifer Chu, Carrie Reed, D.Sc., and Brian Dulisse, Ph.D., for their assistance.
Footnotes
Supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (K01AI073193, K24AI062476, and R37AI42006).
Author Contributions: B.P.L. led the study team, designed and performed analyses, and drafted the manuscript. A.Y.W. performed analyses and assisted with manuscript writing and preparation. K.A.F. and C.R.H. contributed to study design, data interpretation, and manuscript writing.
This article has an online supplement, which is accessible from this issue's table of contents at www.atsjournals.org
Originally Published in Press as DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201101-0181OC on May 11, 2011
Author Disclosure: None of the authors has a financial relationship with a commercial entity that has an interest in the subject of this manuscript.
1. Geng E, Kreiswirth B, Driver C, Li J, Burzynski J, DellaLatta P, LaPaz A, Schluger NW. Changes in the transmission of tuberculosis in New York City from 1990 to 1999. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1453–1458. [PubMed]
2. Small PM, Hopewell PC, Singh SP, Paz A, Parsonnet J, Ruston DC, Schecter GF, Daley CL, Schoolnik GK. The epidemiology of tuberculosis in San Francisco. A population-based study using conventional and molecular methods. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1703–1709. [PubMed]
3. American Thoracic Society Targeted tuberculin testing and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;161:S221–S247. [PubMed]
4. Mazurek M, Jereb J, Vernon A, LoBue P, Goldberg S, Castro K. Updated guidelines for using interferon gamma release assays to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection—United States. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59:1–25. [PubMed]
5. Rose DN. Benefits of screening for latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1513–1521. [PubMed]
6. Salpeter SR, Sanders GD, Salpeter EE, Owens DK. Monitored isoniazid prophylaxis for low-risk tuberculin reactors older than 35 years of age: a risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:1051–1061. [PubMed]
7. Taylor Z. The cost-effectiveness of screening for latent tuberculosis infection. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2000;4:S127–S133. [PubMed]
8. Fitzgerald JM, Gafni A. A cost-effectiveness analysis of the routine use of isoniazid prophylaxis in patients with a positive Mantoux skin test. Am Rev Respir Dis 1990;142:848–853. [PubMed]
9. Comstock GW, Woolpert SF, Livesay VT. Tuberculosis studies in Muscogee County, Georgia. Twenty-year evaluation of a community trial of BCG vaccination. Public Health Rep 1976;91:276–280. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Hart PD, Sutherland I. BCG and vole bacillus vaccines in the prevention of tuberculosis in adolescence and early adult life. BMJ 1977;2:293–295. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Horwitz O, Wilbek E, Erickson PA. Epidemiological basis of tuberculosis eradication. 10. Longitudinal studies on the risk of tuberculosis in the general population of a low-prevalence area. Bull World Health Organ 1969;41:95–113. [PubMed]
12. Marra F, Marra CA, Sadatsafavi M, Moran-Mendoza O, Cook V, Elwood RK, Morshed M, Brunham RC, Fitzgerald JM. Cost-effectiveness of a new interferon-based blood assay, QuantiFERON-TB Gold, in screening tuberculosis contacts. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2008;12:1414–1424. [PubMed]
13. de Perio MA, Tsevat J, Roselle GA, Kralovic SM, Eckman MH. Cost-effectiveness of interferon gamma release assays vs tuberculin skin tests in health care workers. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:179–187. [PubMed]
14. Oxlade O, Schwartzman K, Menzies D. Interferon-gamma release assays and TB screening in high-income countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2007;11:16–26. [PubMed]
15. US Census Bureau United States, regions, States and Puerto Rico population estimates and population change. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau; 2004.
16. Oeltmann JE, Kammerer JS, Pevzner ES, Moonan PK. Tuberculosis and substance abuse in the United States, 1997–2006. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:189–197. [PubMed]
17. Bennett DE, Courval JM, Onorato I, Agerton T, Gibson JD, Lambert L, McQuillan GM, Lewis B, Navin TR, Castro KG. Prevalence of tuberculosis infection in the United States population: the national health and nutrition examination survey, 1999–2000. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008;177:348–355. [PubMed]
18. Horsburgh CR., Jr Priorities for the treatment of latent tuberculosis infection in the United States. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2060–2067. [PubMed]
19. Horsburgh CR, Jr, O'Donnell M, Chamblee S, Moreland JL, Johnson J, Marsh BJ, Narita M, Johnson LS, von Reyn CF. Revisiting rates of reactivation tuberculosis: a population-based approach. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010;182:420–425. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20. CDC Reported tuberculosis in the United States, 2007. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control; 2008.
21. Linas BP, Wong AW, Freedberg KA, Horsburgh CR. The cost effectiveness of tuberculin skin test and interferon gamma release assay screening for latent tuberculosis infection in the US [abstract]. Presented at the ATS 2011 International Conference; May 13–18, 2011, Denver, CO.
22. United States Government. Office of Management and Budget. Historical Tables - Budget of the US Government [accessed 2011 Apr 22] Available from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf.
23. Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, Luce BR, Weinstein MC, Gold MR. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;11:159–168. [PubMed]
24. Dewan PK, Grinsdale J, Liska S, Wong E, Fallstad R, Kawamura LM. Feasibility, acceptability, and cost of tuberculosis testing by whole-blood interferon-gamma assay. BMC Infect Dis 2006;6:47. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Harada N, Higuchi K, Yoshiyama T, Kawabe Y, Fujita A, Sasaki Y, Horiba M, Mitarai S, Yonemaru M, Ogata H, et al. Comparison of the sensitivity and specificity of two whole blood interferon-gamma assays for M. tuberculosis infection. J Infect 2008;56:348–353. [PubMed]
26. Detjen AK, Keil T, Roll S, Hauer B, Mauch H, Wahn U, Magdorf K. Interferon-gamma release assays improve the diagnosis of tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacterial disease in children in a country with a low incidence of tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:322–328. [PubMed]
27. Lee JY, Choi HJ, Park IN, Hong SB, Oh YM, Lim CM, Lee SD, Koh Y, Kim WS, Kim DS, et al. Comparison of two commercial interferon-gamma assays for diagnosing Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Eur Respir J 2006;28:24–30. [PubMed]
28. Palazzo R, Spensieri F, Massari M, Fedele G, Frasca L, Carrara S, Goletti D, Ausiello CM. Use of whole-blood samples in in-house bulk and single-cell antigen-specific gamma interferon assays for surveillance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2008;15:327–337. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
29. Ruhwald M, Bodmer T, Maier C, Jepsen M, Haaland MB, Eugen-Olsen J, Ravn P. Evaluating the potential of IP-10 and MCP-2 as biomarkers for the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Eur Respir J 2008;32:1607–1615. [PubMed]
30. Aichelburg MC, Rieger A, Breitenecker F, Pfistershammer K, Tittes J, Eltz S, Aichelburg AC, Stingl G, Makristathis A, Kohrgruber N. Detection and prediction of active tuberculosis disease by a whole-blood interferon-gamma release assay in HIV-1-infected individuals. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48:954–962. [PubMed]
31. Bartu V, Havelkova M, Kopecka E. QuantiFERON-TB Gold in the diagnosis of active tuberculosis. J Int Med Res 2008;36:434–437. [PubMed]
32. Chee CB, Gan SH, Khinmar KW, Barkham TM, Koh CK, Liang S, Wang YT. Comparison of sensitivities of two commercial gamma interferon release assays for pulmonary tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:1935–1940. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
33. Tsiouris SJ, Coetzee D, Toro PL, Austin J, Stein Z, El-Sadr W. Sensitivity analysis and potential uses of a novel gamma interferon release assay for diagnosis of tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:2844–2850. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Nolan CM, Goldberg SV, Buskin SE. Hepatotoxicity associated with isoniazid preventive therapy: a 7-year survey from a public health tuberculosis clinic. JAMA 1999;281:1014–1018. [PubMed]
35. Horsburgh R, Goldberg S, Bethel J, Colson P, Hirsch-Moverman Y, Hughes S, Shrestha-Kuwahara R, Sterling T, Wall K, Weinfurter P. Low latent tuberculosis infection treatment completion with a 9-month INH regimen [abstract]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;175:A24.
36. International Union Against Tuberculosis Committee on Prophylaxis Efficacy of various durations of isoniazid preventive therapy for tuberculosis: five years of follow-up in the IUAT trial. Bull World Health Organ 1982;60:555–564. [PubMed]
37. Marks SM, Taylor Z, Qualls NL, Shrestha-Kuwahara RJ, Wilce MA, Nguyen CH. Outcomes of contact investigations of infectious tuberculosis patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:2033–2038. [PubMed]
38. Ferebee SH. Controlled chemoprophylaxis trials in tuberculosis. A general review. Bibl Tuberc 1970;26:28–106. [PubMed]
39. Winston CA, Navin TR. Birth cohort effect on latent tuberculosis infection prevalence, United States. BMC Infect Dis 2010;10:206. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
40. Borgdorff MW, Behr MA, Nagelkerke NJ, Hopewell PC, Small PM. Transmission of tuberculosis in San Francisco and its association with immigration and ethnicity. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2000;4:287–294. [PubMed]
41. Dion MJ, Tousignant P, Bourbeau J, Menzies D, Schwartzman K. Measurement of health preferences among patients with tuberculous infection and disease. Med Decis Making 2002;22:S102–S114. [PubMed]
42. Dion MJ, Tousignant P, Bourbeau J, Menzies D, Schwartzman K. Feasibility and reliability of health-related quality of life measurements among tuberculosis patients. Qual Life Res 2004;13:653–665. [PubMed]
43. Marra CA, Marra F, Colley L, Moadebi S, Elwood RK, Fitzgerald JM. Health-related quality of life trajectories among adults with tuberculosis: differences between latent and active infection. Chest 2008;133:396–403. [PubMed]
44. US Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). US city average 1913–2010 [accessed 2011 Mar 31]. Available from: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt.
45. Schackman BR, Gebo KA, Walensky RP, Losina E, Muccio T, Sax PE, Weinstein MC, Seage GR 3rd, Moore RD, Freedberg KA. The lifetime cost of current human immunodeficiency virus care in the United States. Med Care 2006;44:990–997. [PubMed]
46. Foster TS, Miller JD, Marton JP, Caloyeras JP, Russell MW, Menzin J. Assessment of the economic burden of COPD in the US: a review and synthesis of the literature. COPD 2006;3:211–218. [PubMed]
47. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Household Component Summary Tables. : Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2005.
48. American Diabetes Association Economic costs of diabetes in the US In 2007. Diabetes Care 2008;31:596–615. [PubMed]
49. United States Renal Data System 2008. Annual Data Report. Volume 2. Atlas of end stage renal disease. Table 11 - Costs of end stage renal disease [accessed 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.usrds.org/atlas.htm.
50. Indicators of disease burden and the burden of obesity National Institute of Health [accessed 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://dpcpsi.nih.gov/council/pdf/CoC-112008-Shuttinga-Burden.pdf.
51. Silverman S, Dukes EM, Johnston SS, Brandenburg NA, Sadosky A, Huse DM. The economic burden of fibromyalgia: comparative analysis with rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Med Res Opin 2009;25:829–840. [PubMed]
52. Office of National Drug Control Policy The economic costs of drug abuse in the United States, 1992–1998. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President (Publication No. NCJ-190636); 2001.
53. Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. What is the price of life and why doesn't it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1637–1641. [PubMed]
54. US Census Bureau Foreign-born population of the United States current population survey—March 2004 detail tables [accessed 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/foreign/ppl-176.html.
55. Campsmith ML, Rhodes P, Hall HI, Green T. HIV prevalence estimates—United States, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57:1073–1076. [PubMed]
56. United States Department of Homeland Security Yearbook of immigration statistics: 2007. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security; 2008.
57. US Department of Housing and Urban Development The annual homeless assessment report to Congress [accessed 2009 Mar 22]. Available from: http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/povsoc/ahar_5.html.
58. Armstrong GL. Injection drug users in the United States, 1979–2002: an aging population. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:166–173. [PubMed]
59. Mutlu GM, Mutlu EA, Bellmeyer A, Rubinstein I. Pulmonary adverse events of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha antibody therapy. Am J Med 2006;119:639–646. [PubMed]
60. Bureau of Justice Statistics Prison inmates at midyear 2009 - statistical tables. Office of Justice Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; 2010.
61. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) [accessed 2011 Mar 22]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/underweight_adult_07_08/underweight_adult_07_08.htm.
62. Santry HP, Gillen DL, Lauderdale DS. Trends in bariatric surgical procedures. JAMA 2005;294:1909–1917. [PubMed]
63. Kane F. The campaign to end silicosis. Job Safety & Health Quarterly 1997. Winter/Spring. (Accessed August 4, 2011.) Available from: http://www.osha.gov/dsg/topics/silicacrystalline/endsilicosis.html.
64. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Diabetes Fact Sheet: national estimates and general information on diabetes and prediabetes in the United States, 2011. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.
65. US Renal Data System USRDS 2010 Annual data report: atlas of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease in the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2010.
66. Hunink M, Glasziou P, Siegel J, Weeks J, Pliskin J, Elstein A, Weinstein MC. Decision making in health and medicine: integrating evidence and values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
67. Cain KP, Haley CA, Armstrong LR, Garman KN, Wells CD, Iademarco MF, Castro KG, Laserson KF. Tuberculosis among foreign-born persons in the United States: achieving tuberculosis elimination. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;175:75–79. [PubMed]
68. Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, Acharyya S, Herman BA, Hannah LG, Pisano ED. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:1–10. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
69. Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Inadomi JM. Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:573–584. [PubMed]
70. Nolan CM, Elarth AM. Tuberculosis in a cohort of Southeast Asian refugees. A five-year surveillance study. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988;137:805–809. [PubMed]
71. Blum RN, Polish LB, Tapy JM, Catlin BJ, Cohn DL. Results of screening for tuberculosis in foreign-born persons applying for adjustment of immigration status. Chest 1993;103:1670–1674. [PubMed]
72. Collaboration ATC. Life expectancy of individuals on combination antiretroviral therapy in high-income countries: a collaborative analysis of 14 cohort studies. Lancet 2008;372:293–299. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
73. Jacobsson LT, Turesson C, Nilsson JA, Petersson IF, Lindqvist E, Saxne T, Geborek P. Treatment with TNF blockers and mortality risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:670–675. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
74. Friedman L. Tuberculosis screening in alcoholics and drug addicts. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988;138:239. [PubMed]
75. Hibbs JR, Benner L, Klugman L, Spencer R, Macchia I, Mellinger A, Fife DK. Mortality in a cohort of homeless adults in Philadelphia. N Engl J Med 1994;331:304–309. [PubMed]
76. Bock NN, Metzger BS, Tapia JR, Blumberg HM. A tuberculin screening and isoniazid preventive therapy program in an inner-city population. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;159:295–300. [PubMed]
77. Zolopa AR, Hahn JA, Gorter R, Miranda J, Wlodarczyk D, Peterson J, Pilote L, Moss AR. HIV and tuberculosis infection in San Francisco's homeless adults. Prevalence and risk factors in a representative sample. JAMA 1994;272:455–461. [PubMed]
78. Reichman LB, Felton CP, Edsall JR. Drug dependence, a possible new risk factor for tuberculosis disease. Arch Intern Med 1979;139:337–339. [PubMed]
79. Shah NG, Galai N, Celentano DD, Vlahov D, Strathdee SA. Longitudinal predictors of injection cessation and subsequent relapse among a cohort of injection drug users in Baltimore, MD, 1988–2000. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006;83:147–156. [PubMed]
80. Friedman LN, Sullivan GM, Bevilaqua RP, Loscos R. Tuberculosis screening in alcoholics and drug addicts. Am Rev Respir Dis 1987;136:1188–1192. [PubMed]
81. Sabol WJ, Couture H. Prison inmates at midyear 2007 US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC; 2008. [accessed 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pim07.pdf.
82. Lobato MN, Leary LS, Simone PM. Treatment for latent TB in correctional facilities: a challenge for TB elimination. Am J Prev Med 2003;24:249–253. [PubMed]
83. Adams TD, Gress RE, Smith SC, Halverson RC, Simper SC, Rosamond WD, Lamonte MJ, Stroup AM, Hunt SC. Long-term mortality after gastric bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 2007;357:753–761. [PubMed]
84. Flegal KM, Graubard BI, Williamson DF, Gail MH. Excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity. JAMA 2005;293:1861–1867. [PubMed]
85. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Silicosis-related years of potential life lost before age 65 years—United States, 1968–2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57:771–775. [PubMed]
86. Gregg EW, Gu Q, Cheng YJ, Narayan KM, Cowie CC. Mortality trends in men and women with diabetes, 1971 to 2000. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:149–155. [PubMed]
87. Holland DP, Sanders GD, Hamilton CD, Stout JE. Costs and cost-effectiveness of four treatment regimens for latent tuberculosis infection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009;179:1055–1060. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
88. Mofenson LM, Brady MT, Danner SP, Dominguez KL, Hazra R, Handelsman E, Havens P, Nesheim S, Read JS, Serchuck L, et al. Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections among HIV-exposed and HIV-infected children: recommendations from CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. MMWR Recomm Rep 2009;58:1–166. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
89. Benator D, Bhattacharya M, Bozeman L, Burman W, Cantazaro A, Chaisson R, Gordin F, Horsburgh CR, Horton J, Khan A, et al. Rifapentine and isoniazid once a week versus rifampicin and isoniazid twice a week for treatment of drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV-negative patients: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet 2002;360:528–534. [PubMed]
90. Salpeter EE, Salpeter SR. Mathematical model for the epidemiology of tuberculosis, with estimates of the reproductive number and infection-delay function. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:398–406. [PubMed]
91. Drug Topics Red Book, 112th ed. New York: Thomson Healthcare; 2008.
92. Center for Medicare Services US Department of Health and Human Services. 2008 National fee schedule relative value file [accessed 2010 May 25]. Available from: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PhysicianFeeSched/PFSRVF/itemdetail.asp?filterType=none&filterByDID=-99&sortByDID=1&sortOrder=ascending&itemID=CMS1205008&intNumPerPage=10.
93. Center for Medicare Services US Department of Health and Human Services. 2008 Clinical diagnostic laboratory fee schedule [accessed 2010 May 25]. Available from: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ClinicalLabFeeSched/02_clinlab.asp#TopOfPage.
94. Medicare RBRVS The physician's guide. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2008.
95. Holmquist L, Russo CA, Elizhauser A. Tuberculosis stays in US hospitals, 2006 HCUP Statistical Brief #60. October 2008. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD [accessed 2011 Jan 3]. Available from: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb60.pdf.
96. Taylor Z, Marks SM, Rios Burrows NM, Weis SE, Stricof RL, Miller B. Causes and costs of hospitalization of tuberculosis patients in the United States. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2000;4:931–939. [PubMed]
Articles from American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine are provided here courtesy of
American Thoracic Society