Browsing by Author "Webb, John Angus"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Cost-effectiveness of screening and treatment for schistosomiasis among refugees coming to Canada
    (2019-01-14) Webb, John Angus; McBrien, Kerry Alison; Spackman, David Eldon; Vaughan, Stephen; Heitman, Steven James; Fabreau, Gabriel E.
    Background: Depending on their countries of origin, between 12% and 73% of resettled refugees and asylum seekers from endemic countries are infected with schistosomiasis when they arrive in Canada. Many are asymptomatic, but they are at risk for complications that may develop decades later. In Canada, clinicians previously practiced watchful waiting, treating patients if they developed symptoms; but in 2011 new guidelines recommended screening and treatment instead. In the United States, refugees from Africa are presumptively treated for schistosomiasis before they leave their country of origin. The cost-effectiveness of screening or presumptive treatment for schistosomiasis has never been studied. Methods: We constructed a decision-tree model to examine the cost-effectiveness of three management strategies: watchful waiting; screening and treatment; and presumptive treatment. We obtained model data from the literature and other sources, predicting deaths and chronic complications caused by schistosomiasis; as well as costs, and net monetary benefit. Results: Presumptive treatment was cost-saving if the prevalence of schistosomiasis in the target population was greater than 2.4%. In our base case analysis, presumptive treatment was associated with an increase of 0.15 quality-adjusted life years and a cost savings of $383 per person, compared to watchful waiting. It was also more effective and less costly than screening and treatment. Interpretation: Presumptive treatment for schistosomiasis among recently resettled refugees and asylum claimants to Canada is less costly and more effective than watchful waiting or screening and treatment, in groups with prevalence greater than 2.4%. Our results support a revision of the current Canadian guidelines.