SIRCLE: a randomised controlled cost comparison of self-administered short-course isoniazid and rifapentine for cost-effective latent tuberculosis eradication.

BACKGROUND: Currently, treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in Australia consists most commonly of a 9-month course of isoniazid (9H). A 3-month course of weekly isoniazid and rifapentine (3HP) has been shown to be as effective as 9 months of daily isoniazid, and associated with less hepatotoxicity; however, rifapentine is not currently available in Australia. Introduction of this regimen would have apparent advantages for people with LTBI in Victoria by safely shortening duration of LTBI therapy. However, the cost benefit of this new therapeutic approach is uncertain. AIM: Cost-analysis of standard and short-course therapy for LTBI in an Australian context. METHODS: Single-centre randomised controlled trial conducted between December 2013-March 2016. Participants underwent 1:1 randomisation to either a 9-month course of daily isoniazid or a 12-week course of weekly isoniazid and rifapentine. The primary outcome measure was total healthcare system costs (in Australian dollars; AUD) per completed course of LTBI therapy. Secondary cost analyses were performed to consider varying assumptions regarding commercial cost of rifapentine. RESULTS: Overall, 34 of 40 (85%) participants in the 9H group and 36/40 (90%) in the 3HR group completed therapy. One patient in the 3HP group was hospitalised for a febrile illness; no hospitalisations were recorded in the 9H group. The cost per completed course of 9H was 601 AUD, while that of 3HP was significantly lower at 511 AUD (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides cost analysis evidence to support the use of 3HP for the treatment of LTBI in Australia.

Interventions to Improve Vaccination Uptake and Cost Effectiveness of Vaccination Strategies in Newly Arrived Migrants in the EU/EEA: A Systematic Review.

Newly arrived migrants to the EU/EEA (arrival within the past five years), as well as other migrant groups in the region, might be under-immunised and lack documentation of previous vaccinations, putting them at increased risk of vaccine-preventable diseases circulating in Europe. We therefore performed a systematic review conforming to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42016045798) to explore: (i) interventions that improve vaccine uptake among migrants; and (ii) cost-effectiveness of vaccination strategies among this population. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) between 1 January 2006 to 18 June 2018. We included three primary intervention studies performed in the EU/EEA or high-income countries and one cost effectiveness study relevant to vaccinations in migrants. Intervention studies showed small but promising impact only on vaccine uptake with social mobilization/community outreach, planned vaccination programs and education campaigns. Targeting migrants for catch-up vaccination is cost effective for presumptive vaccination for diphtheria, tetanus, and polio, and there was no evidence of benefit of carrying out pre-vaccination serological testing. The cost-effectiveness is sensitive to the seroprevalence and adherence to vaccinations of the migrant. We conclude that scarce but direct EU/EEA data suggest social mobilization, vaccine programs, and education campaigns are promising strategies for migrants, but more research is needed. Research should also study cost effectiveness of strategies. Vaccination of migrants should continue to be a public heath priority in EU/EEA.

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Screening for and Vaccination Against Hepatitis B Virus among Migrants in the EU/EEA: A Systematic Review.

Migrants from hepatitis B virus (HBV) endemic countries to the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) comprise 5.1% of the total EU/EEA population but account for 25% of total chronic Hepatitis B (CHB) infection. Migrants from high HBV prevalence regions are at the highest risk for CHB morbidity. These migrants are at risk of late detection of CHB complications; mortality and onwards transmission. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CHB screening and vaccination programs among migrants to the EU/EEA. We found no RCTs or direct evidence evaluating the effectiveness of CHB screening on morbidity and mortality of migrants. We therefore used a systematic evidence chain approach to identify studies relevant to screening and prevention programs; testing, treatment, and vaccination. We identified four systematic reviews and five additional studies and guidelines that reported on screening and vaccination effectiveness. Studies reported that vaccination programs were highly effective at reducing the prevalence of CHB in children (RR 0.07 95% CI 0.04 to 0.13) following vaccination. Two meta-analyses of therapy for chronic HBV infection found improvement in clinical outcomes and intermediate markers of disease. We identified nine studies examining the cost-effectiveness of screening for CHB: a strategy of screening and treating CHB compared to no screening. The median acceptance of HB screening was 87.4% (range 32.3⁻100%). Multiple studies highlighted barriers to and the absence of effective strategies to ensure linkage of treatment and care for migrants with CHB. In conclusion, screening of high-risk children and adults and vaccination of susceptible children, combined with treatment of CHB infection in migrants, are promising and cost-effective interventions, but linkage to treatment requires more attention.

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Screening for HIV in Migrants in the EU/EEA: A Systematic Review.

Migrants, defined as individuals who move from their country of origin to another, account for 40% of newly-diagnosed cases of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA). Populations at high risk for HIV include migrants, from countries or living in neighbourhoods where HIV is prevalent, and those participating in high risk behaviour. These migrants are at risk of low CD4 counts at diagnosis, increased morbidity, mortality, and onward transmission. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIV testing strategies in migrant populations and to estimate their effect on testing uptake, mortality, and resource requirements. Following a systematic overview, we included four systematic reviews on the effectiveness of strategies in non-migrant populations and inferred their effect on migrant populations, as well as eight individual studies on cost-effectiveness/resource requirements. We assessed the certainty of our results using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The systematic reviews reported that HIV tests are highly accurate (rapid test >90% sensitivity, Western blot and ELISA >99% sensitivity). A meta-analysis showed that rapid testing approaches improve the access and uptake of testing (risk ratio = 2.95, 95% CI: 1.69 to 5.16), and were associated with a lower incidence of HIV in the middle-aged women subgroup among marginalised populations at a high risk of HIV exposure and HIV related stigma. Economic evidence on rapid counselling and testing identified strategic advantages with rapid tests. In conclusion, community-based rapid testing programmes may have the potential to improve uptake of HIV testing among migrant populations across a range of EU/EEA settings.