Author
Listed:
- Nancy L. Judd
- William C. Griffith
- Tim Takaro
- Elaine M. Faustman
Abstract
A common problem with medical surveillance programs using biomarkers is determining the optimal frequency of testing to minimize adverse health effects and cost. In the case of beryllium‐exposed workers, frequency of testing for beryllium sensitization may be especially important. Recent studies indicate a lack of dose response for beryllium sensitization, but do support a dose response for the development of chronic beryllium disease (CBD). Though unproven, this implies that early identification of sensitization and immediate removal from exposure may reduce development of CBD. A model is proposed to project the optimal frequency of sensitization testing using the current beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test (BeLPT) to minimize disease‐related costs, assuming that a positive BeLPT will precede CBD. Conversion rates for cumulative exposure to disease development were adapted from the literature and used with testing costs and cost of disease estimates in the model. The model was run assuming several test frequency regimes. Results support the use of periodic testing in line with the annual schedule proposed in the Final Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program Rule (1999) following initial testing within three months of first beryllium exposure. The financial and health benefits of reducing the time from exposure to detection of early disease was also explored with the model and demonstrated as a highly desirable characteristic for an alternative test or improved BeLPT. Limitations of the approach are discussed as well as options for adapting this biomarker optimization methodology to consider biomarkers of other exposure‐associated diseases.
Suggested Citation
Nancy L. Judd & William C. Griffith & Tim Takaro & Elaine M. Faustman, 2003.
"A Model for Optimization of Biomarker Testing Frequency to Minimize Disease and Cost: Example of Beryllium Sensitization Testing,"
Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1211-1220, December.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:6:p:1211-1220
DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00396.x
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:6:p:1211-1220. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.