RESUMO
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.