Cross-Sectional Assessment of the Association of Eosinophilia with Intestinal Parasitic Infection in U.S.-Bound Refugees in Thailand: Prevalent, Age Dependent, but of Limited Clinical Utility.

The most common causes of eosinophilia globally are helminth parasites. Refugees from high endemic areas are at increased risk of infection compared with the general U.S. population. It is widely accepted that eosinophilia is a good marker for helminth infection in this population, yet its absence has little predictive value for excluding infection. During an enhanced premigration health program, the CDC offered voluntary testing and management of intestinal parasites, among other conditions, to U.S.-bound refugees in Thailand. Stool specimens were tested for Ascaris lumbricoides, Strongyloides stercoralis, Trichuris trichiura, hookworms, Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium spp., and Entamoeba histolytica using quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Complete blood counts were performed to identify eosinophilia. Predictive values of eosinophilia for parasitic infections were calculated within nematode groups. Between July 9, 2012 and November 29, 2013, 2,004 participants were enrolled. About 73% were infected with at least one parasite. The overall median eosinophil count was 483 cells/µL (interquartile range [IQR] = 235-876 cells/µL). Compared with participants who did not test positive for any infection, higher eosinophil counts were observed in those infected with A. lumbricoides (RR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.1-1.4), S. stercoralis (RR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.4-2.4), Necator americanus (RR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1-1.4), and Ancylostoma ceylanicum (RR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.5-2.2). Eosinophil counts were higher in younger participants (2-4 years versus 65+ years: RR = 4.2, 95% CI = 2.5-6.9), and lower in female participants (RR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.8-0.9). Sensitivities ranged from 51% to 73%, specificities from 48% to 65%, and predictive values from 4% to 98%. The predictive value of eosinophilia is poor for the most common parasitic infections, and it should not be used alone for screening refugees.

A comparative cost analysis of the Vaccination Program for US-bound Refugees.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination Program for US-bound Refugees (VPR) currently provides one or two doses of some age-specific Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)-recommended vaccines to US-bound refugees prior to departure. METHODS: We quantified and compared the full vaccination costs for refugees using two scenarios: (1) the baseline of no VPR and (2) the current situation with VPR. Under the first scenario, refugees would be fully vaccinated after arrival in the United States. For the second scenario, refugees would receive one or two doses of selected vaccines before departure and complete the recommended vaccination schedule after arrival in the United States. We evaluated costs for the full vaccination schedule and for the subset of vaccines provided by VPR by four age-stratified groups; all costs were reported in 2015 US dollars. We performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and break-even analyses to evaluate the robustness of results. RESULTS: Vaccination costs with the VPR scenario were lower than costs of the scenario without the VPR for refugees in all examined age groups. Net cost savings per person associated with the VPR were ranged from $225.93 with estimated Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) or Medicaid payments for domestic costs to $498.42 with estimated private sector payments. Limiting the analyses to only the vaccines included in VPR, the average costs per person were 56% less for the VPR scenario with RMA/Medicaid payments. Net cost savings with the VPR scenario were sensitive to inputs for vaccination costs, domestic vaccine coverage rates, and revaccination rates, but the VPR scenario was cost savings across a range of plausible parameter estimates. CONCLUSIONS: VPR is a cost-saving program that would also reduce the risk of refugees arriving while infected with a vaccine preventable disease.

Cost analysis of measles in refugees arriving at Los Angeles International Airport from Malaysia.

Background On August 24, 2011, 31 US-bound refugees from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (KL) arrived in Los Angeles. One of them was diagnosed with measles post-arrival. He exposed others during a flight, and persons in the community while disembarking and seeking medical care. As a result, 9 cases of measles were identified. Methods We estimated costs of response to this outbreak and conducted a comparative cost analysis examining what might have happened had all US-bound refugees been vaccinated before leaving Malaysia. Results State-by-state costs differed and variously included vaccination, hospitalization, medical visits, and contact tracing with costs ranging from $621 to $35,115. The total of domestic and IOM Malaysia reported costs for US-bound refugees were $137,505 [range: $134,531 - $142,777 from a sensitivity analysis]. Had all US-bound refugees been vaccinated while in Malaysia, it would have cost approximately $19,646 and could have prevented 8 measles cases. Conclusion A vaccination program for US-bound refugees, supporting a complete vaccination for US-bound refugees, could improve refugees' health, reduce importations of vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States, and avert measles response activities and costs.

Cost-benefit comparison of two proposed overseas programs for reducing chronic Hepatitis B infection among refugees: is screening essential?

BACKGROUND: Refugees are at an increased risk of chronic Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection because many of their countries of origin, as well as host countries, have intermediate-to-high prevalence rates. Refugees arriving to the US are also at risk of serious sequelae from chronic HBV infection because they are not routinely screened for the virus overseas or in domestic post-arrival exams, and may live in the US for years without awareness of their infection status. METHODS: A cohort of 26,548 refugees who arrived in Minnesota and Georgia during 2005-2010 was evaluated to determine the prevalence of chronic HBV infection. This prevalence information was then used in a cost-benefit analysis comparing two variations of a proposed overseas program to prevent or ameliorate the effects of HBV infection, titled 'Screen, then vaccinate or initiate management' (SVIM) and 'Vaccinate only' (VO). The analyses were performed in 2013. All values were converted to US 2012 dollars. RESULTS: The estimated six year period-prevalence of chronic HBV infection was 6.8% in the overall refugee population arriving to Minnesota and Georgia and 7.1% in those ≥6 years of age. The SVIM program variation was more cost beneficial than VO. While the up-front costs of SVIM were higher than VO ($154,084 vs. $73,758; n=58,538 refugees), the SVIM proposal displayed a positive net benefit, ranging from $24 million to $130 million after only 5 years since program initiation, depending on domestic post-arrival screening rates in the VO proposal. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic HBV infection remains an important health problem in refugees resettling to the United States. An overseas screening policy for chronic HBV infection is more cost-beneficial than a 'Vaccination only' policy. The major benefit drivers for the screening policy are earlier medical management of chronic HBV infection and averted lost societal contributions from premature death.