Absence of Loa loa Microfilaremia among Newly Arrived Congolese Refugees in Texas

Cases of Loiasis Among a Congolese Family: Screening for Loiasis Among Newly Arrived Refugees From Endemic Areas

Loiasis is a parasitic infection caused by the filarial nematode Loa loa within endemic regions of West and Central Africa. These regions include areas co-endemic for other nematode infections. Although loiasis is rarely seen in the United States (US), primary care providers who regularly see refugees from endemic areas should be aware of its clinical presentation, diagnostic work-up, and initial management. Given the challenges of diagnosing loiasis, especially in low prevalence settings, we present cases of four family members, two of whom were diagnosed with loiasis, and discuss an approach to screening populations from endemic regions during their initial Refugee Health Examination upon arrival to the US.

Strategies for management of strongyloidiasis in migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa recently arrived in Italy: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The Italian and the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines both recommend a systematic serological screening for strongyloidiasis in sub-Saharan migrants (SSA), however, studies on clinical and economic impact of this strategy in the Italian and European settings are lacking.

METHODS

A population of 100,000 migrants from SSA to Italy was considered and a Markov decision tree model was developed to assess the clinical and economic impact of two interventions for strongyloidiasis compared with the current practice (passive diagnosis of symptomatic cases): a) universal serological screening and treatment with ivermectin in case of positive test b) universal presumptive treatment with ivermectin. One and 10-year time horizon in the health-care perspective were considered.

RESULTS

In the one and 10-year time horizon respectively the costs for passive diagnosis was €1,164,169 and €9,735,908, those for screening option was € 2,856,011 and € 4,959,638 and those for presumptive treatment was €3,538,474 and € 4,883,272. Considering the cost per cured subject in the one-year time horizon, screening appears more favorable (€209.53), than the other two options (€232.55 per presumptive treatment and €10,197.29 per current strategy). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs) of screening strategy and presumptive treatment were respectively 265.27 and 333.19. The sensitivity analysis identified strongyloidiasis' prevalence as the main driver of ICER.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the current practice (passive diagnosis) both screening and presumptive treatment strategies are more favorable from a cost-effectiveness point of view, with a slight advantage of the screening strategy in a one-year time horizon.