Economic consequences of the implementation of national screening program for chronic HCV infection (original) (raw)
Related papers
Current Pharmaceutical Design, 2008
Early treatment of acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections reflects a new clinical paradigm and a significant option to reduce the socioeconomic burden of HCV. Therefore, this approach seems suitable as a new strategy to face HCV and prevent end stage liver diseases and premature deaths due to progressed chronic HCV-infections. The main limitation of this approach is that the majority of acute infections show an asymptomatic course and do thus not present to the health-care settings.
Cost-effectiveness of targeted screening for hepatitis C in The Netherlands
Epidemiology and Infection, 2011
SUMMARYOn account of the serious complications of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and the improved treatment possibilities, the need to improve HCV awareness and case-finding is increasingly recognized. To optimize a future national campaign with this objective, three pilot campaigns were executed in three regions in The Netherlands. One campaign was aimed at the general population, a second (similar) campaign was extended with a support programme for primary care and a third campaign was specifically aimed at hard-drug users. Data from the pilot campaigns were used to build a mathematical model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the different campaigns. The campaign aimed at the general public without support for primary care did not improve case-finding and was therefore not cost-effective. The similar campaign accompanied by additional support for primary care and the campaign aimed at hard-drug users emerged as cost-effective interventions for identificati...
Cost effectiveness of screening for hepatitis C virus in asymptomatic, average-risk adults
The American Journal of Medicine, 2001
This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets the criteria for inclusion on NHS EED. Each abstract contains a brief summary of the methods, the results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the study and the conclusions drawn. Health technology Screening strategies for hepatitis C in populations at average risk of infection were considered. Three screening strategies were analysed: (1) screening by third-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), followed by confirmatory testing using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) alone; (2) screening by PCR along; and (3) no screening. Type of intervention Screening. Economic study type Cost-utility analysis. Study population The study population comprised a hypothetical cohort of average-risk adults. The authors did not provide a definition of the "average-risk" population with respect to "high-risk" or "low-risk" populations. However, they reported that the study population should be without any specific complaints or symptoms. The age of the baseline cohort was 35 years. Two other age cohorts were considered, those aged 15 years and those over the age of 65 years. Setting The setting was primary care. The economic analysis was carried out in the USA.
Economic evaluation of HCV testing approaches in low and middle income countries
BMC Infectious Diseases, 2017
Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection represents a major public health burden with diverse epidemics worldwide, but at present, only a minority of infected persons have been tested and are aware of their diagnosis. The advent of highly effective direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy, which is becoming available at increasingly lower costs in low and middle income countries (LMICs), represents a major opportunity to expand access to testing and treatment. However, there is uncertainty as to the optimal testing approaches and who to prioritize for testing. We undertook a narrative review of the cost-effectiveness literature on different testing approaches for chronic hepatitis C infection to inform decision-making and formulation of recommendations in the 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) viral hepatitis testing guidelines. Methods: We undertook a focused search and narrative review of the literature for cost effectiveness studies of testing approaches in three main groups:-1) focused testing of specific high-risk groups (defined as those who are part of a population with higher seroprevalence or who have a history of exposure or high-risk behaviours); 2) "birth cohort" testing among easily identified age groups (i.e. specific birth cohorts) known to have a high prevalence of HCV infection; and 3) routine testing in the general population. Articles included were those published in PubMed, written in English and published after 2000. Results: We identified 26 eligible studies. Twenty-four of them were from Europe (n = 14) or the United States (n = 10). There was only one study from a LMIC (Egypt) and this evaluated general population testing. Thirteen studies evaluated focused testing among specific groups at high risk for HCV infection, including nine in persons who inject drugs (PWID); five among people in prison, and one among HIV-infected men who have sex with men (MSM). Eight studies evaluated birth cohort testing, and five evaluated testing in the general population. Most studies were based on a one-time testing intervention, but in one study testing was undertaken every 5 years and in another among HIV-infected MSM there was more frequent testing. Comparators were generally either: 1) no testing, 2) the status quo, or 3) multiple different strategies. Overall, we found broad agreement that focused testing of high risk groups such as persons who inject drugs and men who have sex with men was cost-effective, as was birth cohort testing. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were the prevalence of HCV infection in these groups, efficacy and cost of treatment, stage of disease and linkage to care. The evidence for routine population testing was mixed, and the cost-effectiveness depends largely on the prevalence of HCV.
Systematic review: economic evaluations of HCV screening in the direct-acting antivirals era
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2019
Background: The World Health Organization estimated that 90% of the infected people need to be diagnosed and 80% need to be treated to reach the aim of hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination by 2030. For this reason, all possible strategies to detect and treat HCV-infected people need to be carefully evaluated to implement the best one. Aim: To review and synthesise the economic evaluations of HCV screening programs conducted in the era of direct-acting antiviral agents regimens. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted until April 2018 to provide information on the costs and effectiveness of HCV screenings in direct-acting antiviral agents era. A critical assessment of the quality of economic evaluations retrieved was conducted. Results: The literature search identified 716 references; 17 of them assessed cost and effectiveness of screening programs and antiviral treatments in different populations: general population (n = 7), drug users (n = 5), high-risk populations (n = 4) and other populations (n = 3). The HCV screening and direct-acting antiviral agents treatment appear to be good value for money, both in general and high-risk populations, if a cost per quality adjusted life years of $50 000 is set as willingness to pay threshold. Some studies showed the value of including lower stage of fibrosis in the treatment selection criteria. Conclusions: Several HCV screening strategies plus direct-acting antiviral agents treatments resulted cost-effectiveness in different populations. However, there is still need of country and population-specific evaluations within the different HCV screening and treatment strategies available, in order to assess their cost-effectiveness and sustainability and fully support an evidence-informed policy for HCV elimination.
Economic evaluation of screening programs for hepatitis C virus infection: evidence from literature
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 2015
Background: Hepatitis C is a liver infection caused by hepatitis C virus. Its main complications are cirrhosis and liver cancer. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 185 million people worldwide are infected with hepatitis C virus and, of these, 350,000 die every year. Due to the high disease prevalence and the existence of effective (and expensive) medical treatments able to dramatically change the prognosis, early detection programs can potentially prevent the development of serious chronic conditions, improve health, and save resources. Objective: To summarize the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of screening programs for hepatitis C. Methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed and Scopus search engines. Trip database was queried to identify reports produced by the major Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies. Three reviewers dealt with study selection and data extraction blindly. Results: Ten papers eventually met the inclusion criteria. In studies focusing on asymptomatic cohorts of individuals at general risk the cost/quality adjusted life year of screening programs ranged between US 4,200and4,200 and 4,200and50,000/quality adjusted life year gained, while in those focusing on specific risk factors the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged between 848and848 and 848and128,424/quality adjusted life year gained. Age of the target population and disease prevalence were the main cost-effectiveness drivers. Conclusion: Our results suggest that, especially in the long run, screening programs represent a cost-effective strategy for the management of hepatitis C.
The testing of people with any risk factor for hepatitis C in community pharmacies is cost‐effective
Journal of Viral Hepatitis, 2019
New antiviral drugs with high efficacy mean the hepatitis C virus (HCV) can now be eliminated. To achieve this, it is necessary to identify undiagnosed cases of HCV. However, the costs of testing should be considered when judging the overall costeffectiveness of treatment. This study describes the cost-effectiveness of a community pharmacy testing service in a population of people at risk of HCV living on the Isle of Wight (United Kingdom). Dry blood spot testing was conducted in anyone with a known risk factor for HCV in 20 community pharmacies. The outcomes and costs were entered into a Markov model. Cost and health utilities from the model were used to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In 24 months, 186 tests were conducted, 13 were positive for HCV RNA and six of these (46%) received treatment during the follow-up period. All achieved a sustained virological response at 3 months. The overall cost of the testing and treatment intervention was £242 183, and the ICER for the service was £3689 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. If screening had been restricted to just people with a history of injecting drug use (PWID) the ICER would have been £4865 per QALY gained. The service was effective at identifying people with HCV infection, and despite the additional cost of targeted testing, its cost-effectiveness was below the commonly accepted thresholds. In this setting, restricting targeted testing to PWID would not improve the cost-effectiveness.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2019
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Q7 Most persons infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the United States were born from 1945 through 1965; testing is recommended for this cohort. However, HCV incidence is increasing among younger persons in many parts of the country and treatment is recommended for all adults with HCV infection. We aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness of universal 1-time screening for HCV infection in all adults living in the United States and to determine the prevalence of HCV antibody above which HCV testing is cost effective. METHODS: We developed a Markov state transition model to estimate the effects of universal 1-time screening of adults 18 years or older in the United States, compared with the current guideline-based strategy of screening adults born from 1945 through 1965. We compared potential outcomes of 1-time universal screening of adults or birth cohort screening followed by antiviral treatment of those with HCV infection vs no screening. We measured effectiveness with quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and costs with 2017 US dollars. RESULTS: Based on our model, universal 1-time screening of US residents with a general population prevalence of HCV antibody greater than 0.07% cost less than 50,000/QALYcomparedwithastrategyofnoscreening.Comparedwith1−timebirthcohortscreening,universal1−timescreeningandtreatmentcost50,000/QALY compared with a strategy of no screening. Compared with 1-time birth cohort screening, universal 1-time screening and treatment cost 50,000/QALYcomparedwithastrategyofnoscreening.Comparedwith1−timebirthcohortscreening,universal1−timescreeningandtreatmentcost11,378/QALY gained. Universal screening was cost effective compared with birth cohort screening when the prevalence of HCV antibody positivity was greater than 0.07% among adults not in the cohort born from 1945 through 1965. CONCLUSIONS: Using a Markov state transition model, we found a strategy of universal 1-time screening for chronic HCV infection to be cost effective compared with either no screening or birth cohortbased screening alone.
2016
Introduction: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can lead to severe liver disease. Pregnant women are already routinely screened for several infectious diseases, but not yet for HCV infection. Here we examine whether adding HCV screening to routine screening is cost-effective. Methods: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of implementing HCV screening of all pregnant women and HCV screening of first-generation non-Western pregnant women as compared to no screening, we developed a Markov model. For the