Search

Background: Early peanut introduction (EPI) in the first year of life is associated with reduced risk of developing peanut allergy in children with either severe eczema and/or egg allergy. However, EPI recommendations differ among countries with formal guidelines., Methods: Using simulation and Markov modeling over a 20-year horizon to attempt to explore optimal EPI strategies applied to the US population, we compared high-risk infant-specific IgE peanut screening (US/Canadian) with the Australiasian Society for Clinical Immunology and Allergy (Australia/New Zealand) (ASCIA) and the United Kingdom Department of Health (UKDOH)-published EPI approaches., Results: Screening peanut skin testing of all children with early-onset eczema and/or egg allergy before in-office peanut introduction was dominated by a no screening approach, in terms of number of cases of peanut allergy prevented, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and healthcare costs, although screening resulted in a slightly lower rate of allergic reactions to peanut per patient in high-risk children. Considering costs of peanut allergy in high-risk children, the per-patient cost of early introduction without screening over the model horizon was $6556.69 (95%CI, $6512.76-$6600.62), compared with a cost of $7576.32 (95%CI, $7531.38-$7621.26) for skin test screening prior to introduction. From a US societal perspective, screening prior to introduction cost $654 115 322 and resulted in 3208 additional peanut allergy diagnoses. Both screening and nonscreening approaches dominated deliberately delayed peanut introduction., Conclusions: A no-screening approach for EPI has superior health and economic benefits in terms of number of peanut allergy cases prevented, QALY, and total healthcare costs compared to screening and in-office peanut introduction., (© 2018 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Background: Travelers to countries with high tuberculosis incidence can acquire infection during travel. We sought to compare four screening interventions for travelers from low-incidence countries, who visit countries with varying tuberculosis incidence., Methods: Decision analysis model: We considered hypothetical cohorts of 1,000 travelers, 21 years old, visiting Mexico, the Dominican Republic, or Haiti for three months. Travelers departed from and returned to the United States or Canada; they were born in the United States, Canada, or the destination countries. The time horizon was 20 years, with 3% annual discounting of future costs and outcomes. The analysis was conducted from the health care system perspective. Screening involved tuberculin skin testing (post-travel in three strategies, with baseline pre-travel tests in two), or chest radiography post-travel (one strategy). Returning travelers with tuberculin conversion (one strategy) or other evidence of latent tuberculosis (three strategies) were offered treatment. The main outcome was cost (in 2005 US dollars) per tuberculosis case prevented., Results: For all travelers, a single post-trip tuberculin test was most cost-effective. The associated cost estimate per case prevented ranged from $21,406 for Haitian-born travelers to Haiti, to $161,196 for US-born travelers to Mexico. In all sensitivity analyses, the single post-trip tuberculin test remained most cost-effective. For US-born travelers to Haiti, this strategy was associated with cost savings for trips over 22 months. Screening was more cost-effective with increasing trip duration and infection risk, and less so with poorer treatment adherence., Conclusion: A single post-trip tuberculin skin test was the most cost-effective strategy considered, for travelers from the United States or Canada. The analysis did not evaluate the use of interferon-gamma release assays, which would be most relevant for travelers who received BCG vaccination after infancy, as in many European countries. Screening decisions should reflect duration of travel, tuberculosis incidence, and commitment to treat latent infection.