Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for populations from strongyloidiasis high-risk areas globally who will initiate corticosteroid treatment in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The risk of developing strongyloidiasis hyperinfection syndrome appears to be elevated among individuals who initiate corticosteroid treatment. Presumptive treatment or treatment after screening for populations from Strongyloides stercoralis-endemic areas has been suggested before initiating corticosteroids. However, potential clinical and economic impacts of preventative strategies have not been evaluated. METHODS: Using a decision tree model for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals from S. stercoralis-endemic areas globally initiating corticosteroid treatment, we evaluated clinical and economic impacts of two interventions, 'Screen and Treat' (i.e. screening and ivermectin treatment after a positive test), and 'Presumptively Treat,' compared to current practice (i.e. 'No Intervention'). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness (net cost per death averted) of each strategy using broad ranges of pre-intervention prevalence and hospitalization rates for chronic strongyloidiasis patients initiating corticosteroid treatment. RESULTS: For the baseline parameter estimates, 'Presumptively Treat' was cost-effective (i.e. clinically superior with cost per death averted less than a threshold of $10.6 million per life) compared to 'No Intervention' ($532 000 per death averted) or 'Screen and Treat' ($39 000 per death averted). The two parameters contributing the most uncertainty to the analysis were the hospitalization rate for individuals with chronic strongyloidiasis who initiate corticosteroids (baseline 0.166%) and prevalence of chronic strongyloidiasis (baseline 17.3%) according to a series of one-way sensitivity analyses. For hospitalization rates greater than 0.022%, 'Presumptively Treat' would remain cost-effective. Similarly, 'Presumptively Treat' remained preferred at prevalence rates of 4% or above; 'Screen and Treat' was preferred for prevalence between 2% and 4%, and 'No Intervention' was preferred for prevalence less than 2%. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support decision-making for interventions for populations from S. stercoralis endemic areas before initiating corticosteroid treatment. Although some input parameters are highly uncertain and prevalence varies across endemic countries, 'Presumptively Treat' would likely be preferred across a range for many populations given plausible parameters.

Costs of malaria treatment in the United States.

We estimated inpatient and outpatient payments for malaria treatment in the USA. The mean cost per hospitalized patient was significantly higher than for non-hospitalized patients (e.g. $27 642 vs $1177 among patients with private insurance). Patients with severe malaria payed two to four times more than those hospitalized with uncomplicated malaria.

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.

The Effect of Drug Pricing on Outpatient Payments and Treatment for Three Soil-Transmitted Helminth Infections in the United States, 2010-2017.

The price of certain antiparasitic drugs (e.g., albendazole and mebendazole) has dramatically increased since 2010. The effect of these rising prices on treatment costs and use of standard of care (SOC) drugs is unknown. To measure the impact of drug prices on overall outpatient cost and quality of care, we identified outpatient visits associated with ascariasis, hookworm, and trichuriasis infections from the 2010 to 2017 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Multi-state Medicaid databases using Truven Health MarketScan Treatment Pathways. Evaluation was limited to members with continuous enrollment in non-capitated plans 30 days prior, and 90 days following, the first diagnosis. The utilization of SOC prescriptions was considered a marker for quality of care. The impact of drug price on the outpatient expenses was measured by comparing the changes in drug and nondrug outpatient payments per patient through Welch's two sample t-tests. The total outpatient payments per patient (drug and nondrug), for the three parasitic infections, increased between 2010 and 2017. The increase was driven primarily by prescription drug payments, which increased 20.6-137.0 times, as compared with nondrug outpatient payments, which increased 0.3-2.2 times. As prices of mebendazole and albendazole increased, a shift to alternative SOC and non-SOC drug utilization was observed. Using parasitic infection treatment as a model, increases in prescription drug prices can act as the primary driver of increasing outpatient care costs. Simultaneously, there was a shift to alternative SOC, but also to non-SOC drug treatment, suggesting a decrease in quality of care.

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.

Economic Analysis of the Impact of Overseas and Domestic Treatment and Screening Options for Intestinal Helminth Infection among US-Bound Refugees from Asia.

BACKGROUND: Many U.S.-bound refugees travel from countries where intestinal parasites (hookworm, Trichuris trichuria, Ascaris lumbricoides, and Strongyloides stercoralis) are endemic. These infections are rare in the United States and may be underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, leading to potentially serious consequences. This evaluation examined the costs and benefits of combinations of overseas presumptive treatment of parasitic diseases vs. domestic screening/treating vs. no program. METHODS: An economic decision tree model terminating in Markov processes was developed to estimate the cost and health impacts of four interventions on an annual cohort of 27,700 U.S.-bound Asian refugees: 1) "No Program," 2) U.S. "Domestic Screening and Treatment," 3) "Overseas Albendazole and Ivermectin" presumptive treatment, and 4) "Overseas Albendazole and Domestic Screening for Strongyloides". Markov transition state models were used to estimate long-term effects of parasitic infections. Health outcome measures (four parasites) included outpatient cases, hospitalizations, deaths, life years, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: The "No Program" option is the least expensive ($165,923 per cohort) and least effective option (145 outpatient cases, 4.0 hospitalizations, and 0.67 deaths discounted over a 60-year period for a one-year cohort). The "Overseas Albendazole and Ivermectin" option ($418,824) is less expensive than "Domestic Screening and Treatment" ($3,832,572) or "Overseas Albendazole and Domestic Screening for Strongyloides" ($2,182,483). According to the model outcomes, the most effective treatment option is "Overseas Albendazole and Ivermectin," which reduces outpatient cases, deaths and hospitalization by around 80% at an estimated net cost of $458,718 per death averted, or $2,219/$24,036 per QALY/life year gained relative to "No Program". DISCUSSION: Overseas presumptive treatment for U.S.-bound refugees is a cost-effective intervention that is less expensive and at least as effective as domestic screening and treatment programs. The addition of ivermectin to albendazole reduces the prevalence of chronic strongyloidiasis and the probability of rare, but potentially fatal, disseminated strongyloidiasis.

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.

Costs of, and reimbursement for, vaccines: a case study at the Board of Health Refugee Services in DeKalb county, Georgia.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 70,000 refugees are resettled to the United States each year. Providing vaccination to arriving refugees is important to both reduce the health-related barriers to successful resettlement, and protect the health of communities where refugees resettle. It is crucial to understand the process and resources expended at the state/local and federal government levels to provide vaccinations to refugees resettling to the United States. OBJECTIVES: We estimated costs associated with delivering vaccines to refugees at the Board of Health Refugee Services, DeKalb county, Georgia (DeKalb clinic). METHODS: Vaccination costs were estimated from two perspectives: the federal government and the DeKalb clinic. Data were collected at the DeKalb clinic regarding resources used for vaccination: staff numbers and roles; type and number of vaccine doses administered; and number of patients. Clinic costs included labor and facility-related overhead. The federal government incurred costs for vaccine purchases and reimbursements for vaccine administration. RESULTS: The DeKalb clinic average cost to administer the first dose of vaccine was $12.70, which is lower than Georgia Medicaid reimbursement ($14.81), but higher than the State of Georgia Refugee Health Program reimbursement ($8.00). Federal government incurred per-dose costs for vaccine products and administrative reimbursement were $42.45 (adults) and $46.74 (children). CONCLUSIONS: The total costs to the DeKalb clinic for administering vaccines to refugees are covered, but with little surplus. Because the DeKalb clinic 'breaks even,' it is likely they will continue to vaccinate refugees as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Direct costs of a single case of refugee-imported measles in Kentucky.

BACKGROUND: Refugees are highly vulnerable populations with limited access to health care services. The United States accepts 50,000-75,000 refugees for resettlement annually. Despite residing in camps and other locations where vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks, such as measles, occur frequently, refugees are not required to have any vaccinations before they arrive in the United States. PURPOSE: We estimated the medical and public-health response costs of a case of measles imported into Kentucky by a refugee. METHODS: The Kentucky Refugee Health Coordinator recorded the time and labor of local, state, and some federal personnel involved in caring for the refugee and implementing the public health response activities. Secondary sources were used to estimate the labor and medical care costs of the event. RESULTS: The total costs to conduct the response to the disease event were approximately $25,000. All costs were incurred by government, either public health department or federal, because refugee health costs are paid by the federal government and the event response costs are covered by the public health department. CONCLUSION: A potentially preventable case of measles that was imported into the United States cost approximately $25,000 for the public health response. RECOMMENDATION: To maintain the elimination of measles transmission in the United States, U.S.-bound refugees should be vaccinated overseas. A refugee vaccination program administered during the overseas health assessment has the potential to reduce the risk of importation of measles and other vaccine-preventable disease and would eliminate costs associated with public health response to imported cases and outbreaks.

Pre-departure and post-arrival management of P. falciparum malaria in refugees relocating from sub-Saharan Africa to the United States.

Plasmodium infection, often sub-clinical, is common in migrating sub-Saharan refugee populations. Refugees who subsequently develop clinical malaria suffer illness and exact a cost on state and local health care facilities. Untreated infection is also of public health concern because of the potential for local transmission. In response to increasing numbers of refugees originating in sub-Saharan Africa guidelines for the management of malaria in refugees migrating to the United States have been broadened and updated. The guidelines are based on available evidence-based literature and recent public health experience. These guidelines were critically reviewed, assessed, and approved by multiple National and State entities as well as outside experts. These consensus guidelines recommend that sub-Saharan African refugees relocating to the United States receive presumptive treatment of P. falciparum malaria before departure or during the domestic refugee medical screening after arrival. Presumptive therapy is not currently recommended for either non-falciparum malaria or for refugees relocating from areas outside sub-Saharan Africa.