Objectives: Quantifying the combined impact of morbidity and mortality is a key enabler to assessing the impact of COVID-19 across countries and within countries relative to other diseases, regions, or demographics. Differences in methods, data sources, and definitions of mortality due to COVID-19 may hamper comparisons. We describe efforts to support countries in estimating the national-level burden of COVID-19 using disability-adjusted life years.Methods: The European Burden of Disease Network developed a consensus methodology, as well as a range of capacity-building activities to support burden of COVID-19 studies. These activities have supported 11 national studies so far, with study periods between January 2020 and December 2021.Results: National studies dealt with various data gaps and different assumptions were made to face knowledge gaps. Still, they delivered broadly comparable results that allow for interpretation of consistencies, as well as differences in the quantified direct health impact of the pandemic.Discussion: Harmonized efforts and methodologies have allowed for comparable estimates and communication of results. Future studies should evaluate the impact of interventions, and unravel the indirect health impact of the COVID-19 crisis.

Introduction: The majority of tuberculosis (TB) cases in Sweden occur among migrants from endemic countries through activation of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). Sweden has LTBI-screening policies for migrants that have not been previously evaluated. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the current screening strategy in Stockholm.Methods: A Markov model was developed to predict the costs and effects of the current LTBI-screening program compared to a scenario of no LTBI screening over a 50-year time horizon. Epidemiological and cost data were obtained from local sources when available. The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of societal cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).Results: Screening migrants in the age group 13–19 years had the lowest ICER, 300,082 Swedish Kronor (SEK)/QALY, which is considered cost-effective in Sweden. In the age group 20–34, ICER was 714,527 SEK/QALY (moderately cost-effectives) and in all age groups above 34 ICERs were above 1,000,000 SEK/QALY (not cost-effective). ICER decreased with increasing TB incidence in country of origin.Conclusion: Screening is cost-effective for young cohorts, mainly between 13 and 19, while cost-effectiveness in age group 20–34 years could be enhanced by focusing on migrants from highest incidence countries and/or by increasing the LTBI treatment initiation rate. Screening is not cost-effective in older cohorts regardless of the country of origin.

Background: The best strategy for controlling morbidity due to imported strongyloidiasis in migrants is unclear. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of six possible interventions.Methods: We developed a stochastic Markov chain model. The target population was adult migrants from endemic countries to the European Union; the time horizon, a lifetime and the perspective, that of the health system. Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ACER and ICER) were calculated as 2016 EUR/life-year gained (LYG). Health interventions compared were: base case (no programme), primary care-based presumptive treatment (PCPresTr), primary care-based serological screening and treatment (PCSerTr), hospital-based presumptive treatment (HospPresTr), hospital-based serological screening and treatment (HospSerTr), hospital-based presumptive treatment of immunosuppressed (HospPresTrim) and hospital-based serological screening and treatment of the immunosuppressed (HospSerTrim). The willingness to pay threshold (WTP) was €32 126.95/LYG.Results: The base case model yielded a loss of 2 486 708.24 life-years and cost EUR 3 238 393. Other interventions showed the following: PCPresTr: 2 488 095.47 life-years (Δ1 387.23LYG), cost: EUR 8 194 563; ACER: EUR 3573/LYG; PCSerTr: 2 488 085.8 life-years (Δ1377.57LYG), cost: EUR 207 679 077, ACER: EUR 148 407/LYG; HospPresTr: 2 488 046.17 life-years (Δ1337.92LYG), cost: EUR 14 559 575; ACER: EUR 8462/LYG; HospSerTr: 2 488 024.33 life-years (Δ1316.08LYG); cost: EUR 207 734 073; ACER: EUR 155 382/LYG; HospPresTrim: 2 488 093.93 life-years, cost: EUR 1 105 483; ACER: EUR −1539/LYG (cost savings); HospSerTrim: 2 488 073.8 life-years (Δ1365.55LYG), cost: EUR 4 274 239; ACER: EUR 759/LYG. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken; HospPresTrim remained below WTP for all parameters’ ranges and iterations.Conclusion: Presumptively treating all immunosuppressed migrants from areas with endemicStrongyloideswould generate cost savings to the health system.

Background: Unlike active tuberculosis, latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is asymptomatic and often considered not to affect the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients. However, being diagnosed with and treated for LTBI can be associated with adverse clinical evens such side effects of treatment as well as psychosocial challenges. Therefore, the aims of this study were to qualitatively explore patients’ experiences during diagnosis and treatment of LTBI in Stockholm measure their HRQoL, and contrast and merge the results to better understand how the HRQoL of these patients is affected. Methods: LTBI patients who were treated in Stockholm during September 2017 and June 2018and who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were invited to fill a survey that included a HRQoL instrument, EQ-5D-3 L, and a mental health screening instrument, RHS-15. After filling the survey, a subset of these patients was asked to participate in an interview with open-ended questions that focused on their experiences during the diagnosis and treatment. Results: In total 108 participants filled that survey and interviews were conducted with 20 patients. Patients scored relatively high on EQ-5D: the scores of utility and VAS scale are similar to those reported by the general population of Stockholm. Very few patients reported problems on the physical health domains of EQ-5D which was supported by the quantitative data that showed no effect on physical health and usual activity. Thirty-eight percent screened positive for RHS-15 and 27.8% reported problems with anxiety/depression domain of EQ-5D which could be related to many stressing factors mentioned in the interviews such as: fear and distress related to lack of clarity about LTBI diagnosis, perceived risk of infecting others and uncertainties about the future. Conclusion: The quantified HRQoL of LTBI patients in Stockholm is similar to the general population and there is thus no HRQoL decrements that is detectable with EQ-5D. However, the study reinforces the importance of tackling anxiety and fear and ensuring good health information for persons diagnosed with and treated for LTBI.