Systematic review of cost and cost-effectiveness of different TB-screening strategies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) for TB have the potential to replace the tuberculin skin test (TST) in screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). The higher per-test cost of IGRAs may be compensated for by lower post-screening costs (medical attention, chest x-rays and chemoprevention), given the higher specificity of the new tests as compared to that of the conventional TST. We conducted a systematic review of all publications that have addressed the cost or cost-effectiveness of IGRAs. The objective of this report was to undertake a structured review and critical appraisal of the methods used for the model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of TB screening programmes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using Medline and Embase, 75 publications that contained the terms "IGRA", "tuberculosis" and "cost" were identified. Of these, 13 were original studies on the costs or cost-effectiveness of IGRAs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The 13 relevant studies come from five low-to-medium TB-incidence countries. Five studies took only the costs of screening into consideration, while eight studies analysed the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies. Screening was performed in high-risk groups: close contacts, immigrants from high-incidence countries and healthcare workers. Two studies used the T-SPOT.TB as an IGRA and the other studies used the QuantiFERON-TB Gold and/or Gold In-Tube test. All 13 studies observed a decrease in costs when the IGRAs were used. Six studies compared the use of an IGRA as a test to confirm a positive TST (TST/IGRA strategy) to the use of an IGRA-only strategy. In four of these studies, the two-step strategy and in two the IGRA-only strategy was more cost-effective. Assumptions about TST specificity and progression risk after a positive test had the greatest influence on determining which IGRA strategy was more cost-effective.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The available studies on cost-effectiveness provide strong evidence in support of the use of IGRAs in screening risk groups such as HCWs, immigrants from high-incidence countries and close contacts. So far, only two studies provide evidence that the IGRA-only screening strategy is more cost-effective.</p

T2K neutrino flux prediction

cited By 15 art_number: 012001 affiliation: Centre for Particle Physics, Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Laboratory for High Energy Physics (LHEP), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States; IRFU, CEA Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France; Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, South Korea; Department of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States; Department of Physics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States; Department of Physics, Dongshin University, Naju, South Korea; Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States; IN2P3-CNRS, Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France; Institute for Particle Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Section de Physique, DPNC, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN, Cracow, Poland; High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan; Institut de Fisica d’Altes Energies (IFAE), Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain; IFIC (CSIC and University of Valencia), Valencia, Spain; Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; INFN Sezione di Bari, Dipartimento Interuniversitario di Fisica, Università e Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy; INFN Sezione di Napoli and Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Napoli, Napoli, Italy; INFN Sezione di Padova, Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy; INFN Sezione di Roma, Università di Roma la Sapienza, Roma, Italy; Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation; Kobe University, Kobe, Japan; Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan; Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, United States; Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, IPN Lyon (IN2P3), Villeurbanne, France; Department of Physics, Miyagi University of Education, Sendai, Japan; National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland; State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, United States; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Osaka City University, Department of Physics, Osaka, Japan; Department of Physics, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom; UPMC, Université Paris Diderot, Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et de Hautes Energies (LPNHE), Paris, France; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; School of Physics, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States; III. Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom; University of Silesia, Institute of Physics, Katowice, Poland; STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Warrington, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Kamioka Observatory, University of Tokyo, Kamioka, Japan; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Research Center for Cosmic Neutrinos, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan; Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; TRIUMF, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada; Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Radioelectronics, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Physics, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB, Canada; Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Wroclaw University, Wroclaw, Poland; Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada references: Astier, P., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 515, p. 800. , (NOMAD Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2003.07.054; Ahn, M., (2006) Phys. Rev. D, 74, p. 072003. , (K2K Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.072003; Adamson, P., (2008) Phys. Rev. D, 77, p. 072002. , (MINOS Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.072002; Aguilar-Arevalo, A., (2009) Phys. Rev. D, 79, p. 072002. , (MiniBooNE Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.072002; (2003) Letter of Intent: Neutrino Oscillation Experiment at JHF, , http://neutrino.kek.jp/jhfnu/loi/loi_JHFcor.pdf, T2K Collaboration; Abe, K., (2011) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 659, p. 106. , (T2K Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2011.06.067; Abe, K., (2011) Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, p. 041801. , (T2K Collaboration), PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.041801; Abe, K., (2012) Phys. Rev. D, 85, p. 031103. , (T2K Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.031103; Fukuda, Y., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 501, p. 418. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)00425-X; Beavis, D., Carroll, A., Chiang, I., (1995), Physics Design Report, BNL 52459Abgrall, N., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 84, p. 034604. , (NA61/SHINE Collaboration), PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.034604; Abgrall, N., (2012) Phys. Rev. C, 85, p. 035210. , (NA61/SHINE Collaboration), PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.035210; Bhadra, S., (2013) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 703, p. 45. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.11.044; Van Der Meer, S., Report No. CERN-61-07Palmer, R., Report No. CERN-65-32, 141Ichikawa, A., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 690, p. 27. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.06.045; Matsuoka, K., (2010) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 624, p. 591. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2010.09.074; Abe, K., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 694, p. 211. , (T2K Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.03.023; Abgrall, N., (2011) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 637, p. 25. , (T2K ND280 TPC Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2011.02. 036; Amaudruz, P.-A., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 696, p. 1. , (T2K ND280 FGD Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.08. 020; Battistoni, G., Cerutti, F., Fasso, A., Ferrari, A., Muraro, S., Ranft, J., Roesler, S., Sala, P.R., (2007) AIP Conf. Proc., 896, p. 31. , APCPCS 0094-243X 10.1063/1.2720455; A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, A. Fasso, and J. Ranft, Report No. CERN-2005-010A. Ferrari P. R. Sala A. Fasso J. Ranft Report No. SLAC-R-773A. Ferrari P. R. Sala A. Fasso J. Ranft Report No. INFN-TC-05-11R. Brun, F. Carminati, and S. Giani, Report No. CERN-W5013Zeitnitz, C., Gabriel, T.A., (1993) Proceedings of International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, , in Elsevier Science B.V., Tallahassee, FL; Fasso, A., Ferrari, A., Ranft, J., Sala, P.R., Proceedings of the International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, 1994, , in; Beringer, J., (2012) Phys. Rev. D, 86, p. 010001. , (Particle Data Group), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.010001; Eichten, T., (1972) Nucl. Phys. B, 44, p. 333. , NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/0550-3213(72)90120-4; Allaby, J.V., Tech. Rep. 70-12 (CERN, 1970)Chemakin, I., (2008) Phys. Rev. C, 77, p. 015209. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.015209; Abrams, R.J., Cool, R., Giacomelli, G., Kycia, T., Leontic, B., Li, K., Michael, D., (1970) Phys. Rev. D, 1, p. 1917. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.1.1917; Allaby, J.V., (1970) Yad. Fiz., 12, p. 538. , IDFZA7 0044-0027; Allaby, J.V., (1969) Phys. Lett. B, 30, p. 500. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(69)90184-1; Allardyce, B.W., (1973) Nucl. Phys. A, 209, p. 1. , NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/0375-9474(73)90049-3; Bellettini, G., Cocconi, G., Diddens, A.N., Lillethun, E., Matthiae, G., Scanlon, J.P., Wetherell, A.M., (1966) Nucl. Phys., 79, p. 609. , NUPHA7 0029-5582 10.1016/0029-5582(66)90267-7; Bobchenko, B.M., (1979) Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 30, p. 805. , SJNCAS 0038-5506; Carroll, A.S., (1979) Phys. Lett. B, 80, p. 319. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(79)90226-0; Cronin, J.W., Cool, R., Abashian, A., (1957) Phys. Rev., 107, p. 1121. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.107.1121; Chen, F.F., Leavitt, C., Shapiro, A., (1955) Phys. Rev., 99, p. 857. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.99.857; Denisov, S.P., Donskov, S.V., Gorin, Yu.P., Krasnokutsky, R.N., Petrukhin, A.I., Prokoshkin, Yu.D., Stoyanova, D.A., (1973) Nucl. Phys. B, 61, p. 62. , NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/0550-3213(73)90351-9; Longo, M.J., Moyer, B.J., (1962) Phys. Rev., 125, p. 701. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.125.701; Vlasov, A.V., (1978) Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 27, p. 222. , SJNCAS 0038-5506; Feynman, R., (1969) Phys. Rev. Lett., 23, p. 1415. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.1415; Bonesini, M., Marchionni, A., Pietropaolo, F., Tabarelli De Fatis, T., (2001) Eur. Phys. J. C, 20, p. 13. , EPCFFB 1434-6044 10.1007/s100520100656; Barton, D.S., (1983) Phys. Rev. D, 27, p. 2580. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2580; Skubic, P., (1978) Phys. Rev. D, 18, p. 3115. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.18.3115; Feynman, R.P., (1972) Photon-Hadron Interactions, , Benjamin, New York; Bjorken, J.D., Paschos, E.A., (1969) Phys. Rev., 185, p. 1975. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.185.1975; Taylor, F.E., Carey, D., Johnson, J., Kammerud, R., Ritchie, D., Roberts, A., Sauer, J., Walker, J., (1976) Phys. Rev. D, 14, p. 1217. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.14.1217; Abgrall, N., (2013) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 701, p. 99. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.10.079; Hayato, Y., (2002) Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl., 112, p. 171. , NPBSE7 0920-5632 10.1016/S0920-5632(02)01759-0 correspondence_address1: Abe, K.; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Kamioka Observatory, University of Tokyo, Kamioka, Japan coden: PRVDA abbrev_source_title: Phys Rev D Part Fields Gravit Cosmol document_type: Article source: Scopu

Measurement of the nu(mu) charged-current quasielastic cross section on carbon with the ND280 detector at T2K

This paper reports a measurement by the T2K experiment of the νμ charged current quasielastic (CCQE) cross section on a carbon target with the off-axis detector based on the observed distribution of muon momentum (pμ) and angle with respect to the incident neutrino beam (θμ). The flux-integrated CCQE cross section was measured to be ⟨σ⟩=(0.83±0.12)×10−38  cm2. The energy dependence of the CCQE cross section is also reported. The axial mass, MQEA, of the dipole axial form factor was extracted assuming the Smith-Moniz CCQE model with a relativistic Fermi gas nuclear model. Using the absolute (shape-only) pμ−cosθμ distribution, the effective MQEA parameter was measured to be 1.26+0.21−0.18  GeV/c2 (1.43+0.28−0.22  GeV/c2)

Search for neutrinos in coincidence with gravitational wave events from the LIGO–Virgo O3a observing run with the Super-Kamiokande detector

The Super-Kamiokande detector can be used to search for neutrinos in time coincidence with gravitational waves detected by the LIGO–Virgo Collaboration (LVC). Both low-energy (7–100 MeV) and high-energy (0.1–105 GeV) samples were analyzed in order to cover a very wide neutrino spectrum. Follow-ups of 36 (out of 39) gravitational waves reported in the GWTC-2 catalog were examined; no significant excess above the background was observed, with 10 (24) observed neutrinos compared with 4.8 (25.0) expected events in the high-energy (low-energy) samples. A statistical approach was used to compute the significance of potential coincidences. For each observation, p-values were estimated using neutrino direction and LVC sky map; the most significant event (GW190602_175927) is associated with a post-trial p-value of 7.8% (1.4σ). Additionally, flux limits were computed independently for each sample and by combining the samples. The energy emitted as neutrinos by the identified gravitational wave sources was constrained, both for given flavors and for all flavors assuming equipartition between the different flavors, independently for each trigger and by combining sources of the same nature

Atmospheric neutrino oscillation analysis with external constraints in Super-Kamiokande I-IV

An analysis of atmospheric neutrino data from all four run periods of Super-Kamiokande optimized for sensitivity to the neutrino mass hierarchy is presented. Confidence intervals for Δm2 32, sin2 θ23, sin2 θ13 and δCP are presented for normal neutrino mass hierarchy and inverted neutrino mass hierarchy hypotheses, based on atmospheric neutrino data alone. Additional constraints from reactor data on θ13 and from published binned T2K data on muon neutrino disappearance and electron neutrino appearance are added to the atmospheric neutrino fit to give enhanced constraints on the above parameters. Over the range of parameters allowed at 90% confidence level, the normal mass hierarchy is favored by between 91.9% and 94.5% based on the combined Super-Kamiokande plus T2K result

Diffuse supernova neutrino background search at Super-Kamiokande

A new search for the diffuse supernova neutrino background (DSNB) flux has been conducted at Super-Kamiokande (SK), with a $22.5\times2970$-kton$\cdot$day exposure from its fourth operational phase IV. The new analysis improves on the existing background reduction techniques and systematic uncertainties and takes advantage of an improved neutron tagging algorithm to lower the energy threshold compared to the previous phases of SK. This allows for setting the world's most stringent upper limit on the extraterrestrial $\bar{\nu}_e$ flux, for neutrino energies below 31.3 MeV. The SK-IV results are combined with the ones from the first three phases of SK to perform a joint analysis using $22.5\times5823$ kton$\cdot$days of data. This analysis has the world's best sensitivity to the DSNB $\bar{\nu}_e$ flux, comparable to the predictions from various models. For neutrino energies larger than 17.3 MeV, the new combined $90\%$ C.L. upper limits on the DSNB $\bar{\nu}_e$ flux lie around $2.7$ cm$^{-2}$$\cdot$$\text{sec}^{-1}$, strongly disfavoring the most optimistic predictions. Finally, potentialities of the gadolinium phase of SK and the future Hyper-Kamiokande experiment are discussed.Comment: 42 pages, 37 figures, 14 table