Search

Background Pediatric international travelers account for nearly half of measles importations in the United States. Over one third of pediatric international travelers depart the United States without the recommended measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations: 2 doses for travelers ≥12 months and 1 dose for travelers 6 to <12 months. Methods We developed a model to compare 2 strategies among a simulated cohort of international travelers (6 months to <6 years): (1) No pretravel health encounter (PHE): travelers depart with baseline MMR vaccination status; (2) PHE: MMR-eligible travelers are offered vaccination. All pediatric travelers experience a destination-specific risk of measles exposure (mean, 30 exposures/million travelers). If exposed to measles, travelers' age and MMR vaccination status determine the risk of infection (range, 3%-90%). We included costs of medical care, contact tracing, and lost wages from the societal perspective. We varied inputs in sensitivity analyses. Model outcomes included projected measles cases, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ($/quality-adjusted life year [QALY], cost-effectiveness threshold ≤$100 000/QALY). Results Compared with no PHE, PHE would avert 57 measles cases at $9.2 million/QALY among infant travelers and 7 measles cases at $15.0 million/QALY among preschool-aged travelers. Clinical benefits of PHE would be greatest for infants but cost-effective only for travelers to destinations with higher risk for measles exposure (ie, ≥160 exposures/million travelers) or if more US-acquired cases resulted from an infected traveler, such as in communities with limited MMR coverage. Conclusions Pretravel MMR vaccination provides the greatest clinical benefit for infant travelers and can be cost-effective before travel to destinations with high risk for measles exposure or from communities with low MMR vaccination coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We projected the clinical and economic impact of alternative testing strategies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence and mortality in Massachusetts using a microsimulation model. Methods We compared 4 testing strategies: (1) hospitalized: polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing only for patients with severe/critical symptoms warranting hospitalization; (2) symptomatic: PCR for any COVID-19–consistent symptoms, with self-isolation if positive; (3) symptomatic + asymptomatic once: symptomatic and 1-time PCR for the entire population; and (4) symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly: symptomatic with monthly retesting for the entire population. We examined effective reproduction numbers (Re = 0.9–2.0) at which policy conclusions would change. We assumed homogeneous mixing among the Massachusetts population (excluding those residing in long-term care facilities). We used published data on disease progression and mortality, transmission, PCR sensitivity/specificity (70%/100%), and costs. Model-projected outcomes included infections, deaths, tests performed, hospital-days, and costs over 180 days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). Results At Re = 0.9, symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly vs hospitalized resulted in a 64% reduction in infections and a 46% reduction in deaths, but required >66-fold more tests/day with 5-fold higher costs. Symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly had an ICER <$100 000/QALY only when Re ≥1.6; when test cost was ≤$3, every 14-day testing was cost-effective at all Re examined. Conclusions Testing people with any COVID-19–consistent symptoms would be cost-saving compared to testing only those whose symptoms warrant hospital care. Expanding PCR testing to asymptomatic people would decrease infections, deaths, and hospitalizations. Despite modest sensitivity, low-cost, repeat screening of the entire population could be cost-effective in all epidemic settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of AIDS & Behavior is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)