ArticleBMJ open2026
Cost-effectiveness of latent tuberculosis infection screening using interferon-gamma release assays among migrants to Japan: a Markov modelling study incorporating social vulnerability and access barriers.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) screening strategies using interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) among migrants, integrating social vulnerability and access barriers into the modelling framework to support more inclusive public health policy.
designA Markov state-transition model was constructed from a public healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime horizon.
settingJapan. POPULATION: A hypothetical cohort of asymptomatic 30-year-old immigrants originating from six high-incidence countries.
interventionsScreening strategies included IGRA-based LTBI testing paired with various preventive treatment regimens: 3-month once-weekly isoniazid plus rifapentine (3HP) under directly observed therapy (DOT), 3HP under self-administered therapy, 1-month daily isoniazid plus rifapentine (1HP) under DOT, 4-month daily self-administered rifampin (4R), 3-month daily self-administered isoniazid plus rifampin, 6-month daily self-administered isoniazid, 9-month daily self-administered isoniazid, pre-entry chest X-ray, postentry chest X-ray, postentry artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted chest X-ray and no screening.
main outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), TB cases and TB-related deaths.
resultsAmong all evaluated strategies, IGRA with 3HP under DOT was the most cost-effective strategy (US$200.1; 25.1042 QALYs; ICER vs 4R: US$29 182 per QALY gained). The current pre-entry chest X-ray remained the least costly option as screening expenses are borne by applicants. Cost-effectiveness was strongly influenced by screening access and the risk of TB reactivation. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50 000 per QALY gained, IGRA with 3HP under DOT, AI-assisted chest X-ray and IGRA with 4R showed probabilities of cost-effectiveness of 40.0%, 27.4% and 22.9%, respectively. For 122 454 immigrants entering Japan in 2023, IGRA with 3HP under DOT was projected to prevent 1403 TB cases and 479 TB-related deaths.
conclusionsIGRA with 3HP under DOT provides strong cost-effectiveness and preventive impact. IGRA with 1HP under DOT also shows promising potential, contingent on rifapentine pricing and strengthened public health support. Integrating LTBI screening with improved access to screening and healthier living environments may reduce TB reactivation among migrants and promote more equitable health outcomes, particularly for socially vulnerable groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.