Economic consequences of the implementation of national screening program for chronic HCV infection (original) (raw)

Abstract

Background: Chronic HCV infection is still one of the leading causes for liver morbidity and mortality worldwide. Increase in testing and diagnosis would result in early identification of people with chronic infection and would enable timely access to care and treatment, as well as prevent or delay progression of liver disease. The aim of the present study is to examine the cost and benefits of introducing ones per life testing for HCV infection among the group of 39-64 years old people who regularly go to prophylactic examinations in Bulgaria. Research design and methods: Combined cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and net benefit of three screening approaches. Results: Screening of the birth-cohort type (aged 39-64 and born before the blood testing became available) provides benefits compared to the current practice of symptomatic testing and leads to more LYGs. Testing among this age group is efficient with an ICER below the proposed by WHO threshold of 1-3 times GDP/capita. Conclusions: Targeted testing among adults between 39 and 64 years with anti-HCV antibody once per their life in Bulgaria could be considered as cost-effective and provides benefits both for the paying institutions and the patients.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (31)

  1. Papers of special note have been highlighted as either of interest (•) or of considerable interest (••) to readers.
  2. Lavanchy D. Evolving epidemiology of hepatitis C virus. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011;17:107-115.
  3. • Current epidemiological assessments have identified complex patterns with highly variable local prevalence rates between countries and within countries. The assessment of the national HCV prevalence and transmission modes should be completed to enable national authorities to prioritize preventive measures and to make the most appropriate use of available resources.
  4. Mutimer D, Aghemo A, Diepolder H, et al. EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatitis C virus infection. J Hepatol. 2014;60:392-420.
  5. WHO: guidelines for screening care and treatment of persons with chronic hepatitis C infection. Updated version 2016, ISBN 978 92 4 154961 5. [cited 2019 Jan]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/ bitstream/handle/10665/205035/9789241549615_eng.pdf;jsessio nid=7DD81A30D03F26C35EA93715F21FE322?sequence=1.
  6. Gupta E, Bajpai M, Choudhary A. Hepatitis C virus: screening, diag- nosis, and interpretation of laboratory assays. Asian J Transfus Sci. 2014;8:19-25.
  7. Backus LI, Belperio PS. Comparative effectiveness of ledispavir/ sofosbuvir ± ribavirin vs. obmitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasa- buvir± ribavirivn in 6961 genotype 1 patients treated in routine medical practice. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016;44:400-410.
  8. Jacobson IM, Lawitz E, Kwo PY. Safety and efficacy of elbasavir/gazo- previr in patients with hepatitis C virusinfection and compensated cirrhosis: an integrated analysis. Gastroenterology. 2017;152:1372-1382.
  9. Asselah T, Kowdley KV, Zadeikis N, et al. Efficacy of glecaprevir/pibren- stavir for 8 or 12 weeks in patients with hepatitis 2, 4, 5 or 6 infection without cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16(3):417-426.
  10. WHO: guidelines on hepatitis B and C testing 2017. ISBN 978-92- 4-154998-1. [cited 2019 Jan]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/ iris/bitstream/handle/10665/254621/9789241549981-eng.pdf? sequence=1.
  11. Pharmacotherapeutic guideline for treatment of gastro-intestinal diseases/28.01.2016. [cited 2018 Feb]. Available from: http://ncpr.bg/.
  12. Antonov KA. Diagnostic and treatment of chronic HC infection in Bulgaria -past and present. Clujul Med. 2010;LXXXIII-nr.1:13-15.
  13. Dimitrova M, Pavlov K, Mitov K, et al. Chornic Hepatitis C-related cirrhosis hospitalization cost analysis in Bulgaria. Front Med (Lausanne). 2017;
  14. DOI:10.3389/fmed.2017.00125.
  15. Kotzev I, Ivanova I. Hepatitis C. GP News. 2011;5.
  16. Dimitrova M, Kamusheva M, Mitov K, et al. Screening and diagnosis of chronic HCV infection in Bulgaria: a review of the current practice. Biomed Res. 2018;29:13.
  17. •• Possible national screening would lead to almost 4 times higher number of patients diagnosed at early stages of the infection, almost 2 to 4 times higher number of patients with access to treatment and decrease in the HCV-related expected mortality
  18. WHO guidelines on hepatitis B and C testing. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
  19. Ordinance for the regulation and registration of the prices of the medicinal products/2013.
  20. Bertam MY, Lauer JA, Joncheere KD, et al. Cost-effectiveness thresh- olds: pros and cons. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94:925-930.
  21. Clinical evidence-based guideline for breast cancer. MORE 2013. [cited 2019 Mar]. Available from: http://www.sbaloncology.bg/bg/ science-and-research/library/more2013.htmlhttp://www.mh.govern ment.bg/media/filer_public/2019/02/15/pms_ceni_tarifa_ upnscrlp_11022019.pdf.
  22. Asselah T, Marcellin P. Interferon free therapy with direct acting antivirals for HCV. Liver Int. 2013 Feb;33(Suppl 1):93-104.
  23. Cenderello G, Taramasso L, Marra D, et al. HCV elimination plan leads to significant benefits in managing liver-related diseases and hospital interventions: a regional simulation. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019;19:2.
  24. •• Treating the entire eligible HCV population would lead to significant benefits and savings in managing liver-related dis- eases and their direct costs.
  25. Coward S, Leggett L, Kaplan GG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screen- ing for hepatitis C virus: a systematic review of economic evaluations. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e011821.
  26. • With the developments of near-cures for hepatitis C virus (HCV), who to screen has become a high-priority policy issue in many western countries. Cost-effectiveness of screening programmes should be one consideration when developing policy.
  27. Caballería L, Pera G, Bernad J, et al. Strategies for the detection of hepatitis C viral infection in the general population. Rev Clin Esp (Barc). 2014 Jun-Jul;214(5): 242-246.
  28. Wong WWL, Tu HA, Feld JJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening for hepatitis C in Canada. CMAJ. 2015;187(3):E110-E121.
  29. Ruggeri M, Coretti S, Gasbarrini A, et al. Economic assessment of an anti-HCV screening program in Italy. Value Health. 2013;16 (6):965-972.
  30. • The anti-HCV screening program is a valid health-related invest- ment improving patients' quality of life and survival with an acceptable expenditure increase for the National Health Service.
  31. WHO: guidelines for the screening, care and treatment of persons with hepatitis C infection 2014. [cited 2019 Feb]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/111747/ 9789241548755_eng.pdf?sequence=1.