Screening for hepatitis C in genito-urinary medicine clinics: a cost utility analysis

Elimination of hepatitis C virus in Germany: modelling the cost-effectiveness of HCV screening strategies

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis C is a major public health burden. With new interferon-free direct-acting agents (showing sustained viral response rates of more than 98%), elimination of HCV seems feasible for the first time. However, as HCV infection often remains undiagnosed, screening is crucial for improving health outcomes of HCV-patients. Our aim was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of a nationwide screening strategy in Germany.

METHODS

We used a Markov cohort model to simulate disease progression and examine long-term population outcomes, HCV associated costs and cost-effectiveness of HCV screening. The model divides the total population into three subpopulations: general population (GEP), people who inject drugs (PWID) and HIV-infected men who have sex with men (MSM), with total infection numbers being highest in GEP, but new infections occurring only in PWIDs and MSM. The model compares four alternative screening strategies (no/basic/advanced/total screening) differing in participation and treatment rates.

RESULTS

Total number of HCV-infected patients declined from 275,000 in 2015 to between 125,000 (no screening) and 14,000 (total screening) in 2040. Similarly, lost quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were 320,000 QALYs lower, while costs were 2.4 billion EUR higher in total screening compared to no screening. While incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) increased sharply in GEP and MSM with more comprehensive strategies (30,000 EUR per QALY for total vs. advanced screening), ICER decreased in PWIDs (30 EUR per QALY for total vs. advanced screening).

CONCLUSIONS

Screening is key to have an efficient decline of the HCV-infected population in Germany. Recommendation for an overall population screening is to screen the total PWID subpopulation, and to apply less comprehensive advanced screening for MSM and GEP.

Who to test and how to test for chronic hepatitis C infection - 2016 WHO testing guidance for low- and middle-income countries

Testing and diagnosis of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the gateway for access to both treatment and prevention services, and crucial for an effective hepatitis epidemic response. In contrast to HIV, a systematic approach to hepatitis C testing has been fragmented and limited to a few countries, and there remains a large burden of undiagnosed cases globally. Key challenges in the current hepatitis testing response, include lack of simple, reliable, and low cost diagnostic tests, laboratory capacity, and testing facilities; inadequate data to guide country-specific hepatitis testing approaches and who to test; stigmatization and social marginalization of some groups with or at risk of viral hepatitis; and lack of international or national guidelines on hepatitis testing for resource-limited settings. New tools to support the hepatitis global response include the 2016 Global Hepatitis Health Sector Strategy which include targets for testing and diagnosis, and World Health Organization (WHO) 2016 hepatitis testing guidelines for adults, adolescents, and children in low- and middle-income countries. The testing guidance complements recent published WHO guidance on the prevention, care and treatment of chronic hepatitis C and hepatitis B infection. These testing guidelines outline the public health approach to strengthening and expanding current testing practices for HCV and HBV and address what serological and virological assays to use, and who to test, as well as interventions to promote linkage to prevention and care after testing. They are intended for use across all age groups and populations. See boxes for key recommendations. Future directions and innovations in viral hepatitis testing include use of point-of-care assays for nucleic acid testing (NAT) and core antigen; validation of dried blood spots specimens with different commercial serological and NAT assays; multiplex and polyvalent platforms for integrated testing of HIV, HBV and HCV; and potential for self-testing.

Cost-effectiveness of screening for hepatitis C virus: a systematic review of economic evaluations

OBJECTIVES

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. The objective of this work is to synthesise the cost-effectiveness of HCV screening programmes.

SETTING

A systematic review was completed. 5 databases were searched until May 2016 (NHSEED, MEDLINE, the HTA Health Technology Assessment Database, EMBASE, EconLit).

PARTICIPANTS

Any study reporting an economic evaluation (any type) of screening compared with opportunistic or no screening for HCV was included. Exclusion criteria were: (1) abstracts or commentaries, (2) economic evaluations of other interventions for HCV, including blood donors screening, diagnosis tests for HCV, screening for concurrent disease or medications for treatment.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Data extraction included type of model, target population, perspective, comparators, time horizon, discount rate, clinical inputs, cost inputs and outcome. Quality was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Data are summarised using narrative synthesis by population.

RESULTS

2305 abstracts were identified with 52 undergoing full-text review. 30 papers met inclusion criteria addressing 7 populations: drug users (n=6), high risk (n=5), pregnant (n=4), prison (n=3), birth cohort (n=8), general population (n=5) and other (n=6). The majority (77%) of the studies were high quality. Drug users, birth cohort and high-risk populations were associated with cost-effectiveness ratios of under £30 000 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY). The remaining populations were associated with cost-effectiveness ratios that exceeded £30 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evidence for screening populations is robust. If a cost per QALY of £30 000 is considered reasonable value for money, then screening birth cohorts, drug users and high-risk populations are policy options that should be considered.

Cost-Effectiveness of HBV and HCV Screening Strategies--A Systematic Review of Existing Modelling Techniques

Introduction

Studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of screening for Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) and Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) are generally heterogeneous in terms of risk groups, settings, screening intervention, outcomes and the economic modelling framework. It is therefore difficult to compare cost-effectiveness results between studies. This systematic review aims to summarise and critically assess existing economic models for HBV and HCV in order to identify the main methodological differences in modelling approaches.

Methods

A structured search strategy was developed and a systematic review carried out. A critical assessment of the decision-analytic models was carried out according to the guidelines and framework developed for assessment of decision-analytic models in Health Technology Assessment of health care interventions.

Results

The overall approach to analysing the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies was found to be broadly consistent for HBV and HCV. However, modelling parameters and related structure differed between models, producing different results. More recent publications performed better against a performance matrix, evaluating model components and methodology.

Conclusion

When assessing screening strategies for HBV and HCV infection, the focus should be on more recent studies, which applied the latest treatment regimes, test methods and had better and more complete data on which to base their models. In addition to parameter selection and associated assumptions, careful consideration of dynamic versus static modelling is recommended. Future research may want to focus on these methodological issues. In addition, the ability to evaluate screening strategies for multiple infectious diseases, (HCV and HIV at the same time) might prove important for decision makers.

Infection with hepatitis B and C virus in Europe: a systematic review of prevalence and cost-effectiveness of screening

BACKGROUND

Treatment for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is improving but not benefiting individuals unaware to be infected. To inform screening policies we assessed (1) the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and anti-hepatitis C virus antibody (anti-HCV-Ab) prevalence for 34 European countries; and (2) the cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic HBV and HCV infection.

METHODS

We searched peer-reviewed literature for data on HBsAg and anti-HCV-Ab prevalence and cost-effectiveness of screening of the general population and five subgroups, and used data for people who inject drugs (PWID) and blood donors from two European organizations. Of 1759 and 468 papers found in the prevalence and cost-effectiveness searches respectively, we included 124 and 29 papers after assessing their quality. We used decision rules to calculate weighted prevalence estimates by country.

RESULTS

The HBsAg and anti-HCV-Ab prevalence in the general population ranged from 0.1%-5.6% and 0.4%-5.2% respectively, by country. For PWID, men who have sex with men and migrants, the prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV-Ab was higher than the prevalence in the general population in all but 3 countries. There is evidence that HCV screening of PWID and HBsAg screening of pregnant women and migrants is cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of chronic HBV and HCV infection varies widely between European countries. Anti-HCV-Ab screening of PWID and HBsAg screening of pregnant women and migrants have European public health priority. Cost-effectiveness analyses may need to take effect of antiviral treatment on preventing HBV and HCV transmission into account.

Cost effectiveness of hepatitis C-related interventions targeting substance users and other high-risk groups: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In developed countries, injection drug users have the highest prevalence and incidence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Clinicians and policy makers have several options for reducing morbidity and mortality related to HCV infection, including preventing new infections, screening high-risk populations, and optimizing uptake and delivery of antiviral therapy. Cost-effectiveness analyses provide an estimate of the value for money associated with adopting healthcare interventions. Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of hepatitis C interventions (prevention, screening, treatment) targeting substance users and other groups with a high proportion of substance users.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HealthSTAR and EconLit, and the grey literature. Studies were critically appraised using the Drummond and Jefferson, Neumann et al. and Philips et al. checklists. We developed and applied a quality appraisal instrument specific to cost-effectiveness analyses of HCV interventions. In addition, we summarized cost-effectiveness estimates using a single currency and year ($US, year 2009 values).

RESULTS

Twenty-one economic evaluations were included, which addressed prevention (three), screening (ten) and treatment (eight). The quality of the analyses varied greatly. A significant proportion did not incorporate important aspects of HCV natural history, disease costs and antiviral therapy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (less costly and more effective) to $US603,352 per QALY. However, many ICERs were less than $US100,000 per QALY. Screening and treatment interventions involving pegylated interferon and ribavirin were generally cost effective at the $US100,000 per QALY threshold, with the exception of some subgroups, such as immune compromised patients with genotype 1 infections.

CONCLUSIONS

No clear consensus emerged from the studies demonstrating that prevention, screening or treatment provides better value for money as each approach can be economically attractive in certain subgroups. More high-quality economic evaluations of preventing, identifying and treating HCV infection in substance users are needed.

Cost effectiveness of screening strategies for early identification of HIV and HCV infection in injection drug users

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of HIV and HCV screening of injection drug users (IDUs) in opioid replacement therapy (ORT).

DESIGN

Dynamic compartmental model of HIV and HCV in a population of IDUs and non-IDUs for a representative U.S. urban center with 2.5 million adults (age 15-59).

METHODS

We considered strategies of screening individuals in ORT for HIV, HCV, or both infections by antibody or antibody and viral RNA testing. We evaluated one-time and repeat screening at intervals from annually to once every 3 months. We calculated the number of HIV and HCV infections, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

Adding HIV and HCV viral RNA testing to antibody testing averts 14.8-30.3 HIV and 3.7-7.7 HCV infections in a screened population of 26,100 IDUs entering ORT over 20 years, depending on screening frequency. Screening for HIV antibodies every 6 months costs $30,700/QALY gained. Screening for HIV antibodies and viral RNA every 6 months has an ICER of $65,900/QALY gained. Strategies including HCV testing have ICERs exceeding $100,000/QALY gained unless awareness of HCV-infection status results in a substantial reduction in needle-sharing behavior.

DISCUSSION

Although annual screening for antibodies to HIV and HCV is modestly cost effective compared to no screening, more frequent screening for HIV provides additional benefit at less cost. Screening individuals in ORT every 3-6 months for HIV infection using both antibody and viral RNA technologies and initiating ART for acute HIV infection appears cost effective.

Should patients with abnormal liver function tests in primary care be tested for chronic viral hepatitis: cost minimisation analysis based on a comprehensively tested cohort

Background

Liver function tests (LFTs) are ordered in large numbers in primary care, and the Birmingham and Lambeth Liver Evaluation Testing Strategies (BALLETS) study was set up to assess their usefulness in patients with no pre-existing or self-evident liver disease. All patients were tested for chronic viral hepatitis thereby providing an opportunity to compare various strategies for detection of this serious treatable disease.

Methods

This study uses data from the BALLETS cohort to compare various testing strategies for viral hepatitis in patients who had received an abnormal LFT result. The aim was to inform a strategy for identification of patients with chronic viral hepatitis. We used a cost-minimisation analysis to define a base case and then calculated the incremental cost per case detected to inform a strategy that could guide testing for chronic viral hepatitis.

Results

Of the 1,236 study patients with an abnormal LFT, 13 had chronic viral hepatitis (nine hepatitis B and four hepatitis C). The strategy advocated by the current guidelines (repeating the LFT with a view to testing for specific disease if it remained abnormal) was less efficient (more expensive per case detected) than a simple policy of testing all patients for viral hepatitis without repeating LFTs. A more selective strategy of viral testing all patients for viral hepatitis if they were born in countries where viral hepatitis was prevalent provided high efficiency with little loss of sensitivity. A notably high alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level (greater than twice the upper limit of normal) on the initial ALT test had high predictive value, but was insensitive, missing half the cases of viral infection.

Conclusions

Based on this analysis and on widely accepted clinical principles, a "fast and frugal" heuristic was produced to guide general practitioners with respect to diagnosing cases of viral hepatitis in asymptomatic patients with abnormal LFTs. It recommends testing all patients where a clear clinical indication of infection is present (e.g. evidence of intravenous drug use), followed by testing all patients who originated from countries where viral hepatitis is prevalent, and finally testing those who have a notably raised ALT level (more than twice the upper limit of normal). Patients not picked up by this efficient algorithm had a risk of chronic viral hepatitis that is lower than the general population.

Reconstructing the rheumatoid wrist: a utility analysis comparing total wrist fusion and total wrist arthroplasty from the perspectives of rheumatologists and hand surgeons

Rheumatologists and hand surgeons have historically demonstrated strikingly divergent attitudes toward the benefits of surgical intervention, either total wrist fusion or total wrist arthroplasty, for the rheumatoid wrist. A utility analysis was conducted to compare a national random sample of hand surgeons and rheumatologists regarding their opinions about surgical management of severe rheumatoid wrist disease. A web-based trade-off utility survey was developed, and participants were presented with survey scenarios comparing well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis with operative and non-operative management. Utility values were calculated for each scenario, and a decision analytic model was constructed. Utility values for rheumatologists and hand surgeons did not differ significantly for any scenario. Total wrist arthroplasty was associated with the highest expected gain in quality-adjusted life-years for each subgroup. This decision analytic model demonstrates similar opinions between two subspecialties that have historically demonstrated divergent attitudes towards rheumatoid hand surgery.

Bias in Markov models of disease

We examine bias in Markov models of diseases, including both chronic and infectious diseases. We consider two common types of Markov disease models: ones where disease progression changes by severity of disease, and ones where progression of disease changes in time or by age. We find sufficient conditions for bias to exist in models with aggregated transition probabilities when compared to models with state/time dependent transition probabilities. We also find that when aggregating data to compute transition probabilities, bias increases with the degree of data aggregation. We illustrate by examining bias in Markov models of Hepatitis C, Alzheimer's disease, and lung cancer using medical data and find that the bias is significant depending on the method used to aggregate the data. A key implication is that by not incorporating state/time dependent transition probabilities, studies that use Markov models of diseases may be significantly overestimating or underestimating disease progression. This could potentially result in incorrect recommendations from cost-effectiveness studies and incorrect disease burden forecasts.

Gauging acceptance of a hepatitis C test by family planning clinic attendees in Glasgow, UK

BACKGROUND

In the UK, pregnant women are not offered and recommended a hepatitis C virus (HCV) test because no effective intervention to prevent vertical transmission of HCV exists following conception. Mother-to-child transmission of HCV could, however, be reduced if infected women planning to have children underwent a course of therapy prior to conception.

OBJECTIVE

To determine what proportion of female family planning clinic (FPC) attendees would hypothetically accept an HCV test if they were offered it and to identify the factors associated with such a decision.

METHODS

Opportunistic sampling was used to recruit 1000 women attending FPCs in Glasgow during 2002/2003. Participants were asked to self-complete a brief questionnaire about HCV and testing.

RESULTS

Of 964 participants, 62% reported that they would accept an HCV test if it was offered in the family planning setting and 24% indicated that they were undecided. Only 4% of women reported that they would be offended if offered an HCV test. The highest rates of hypothetical acceptance of an HCV test were reported among those who had ever injected drugs (88%) and those who felt that they were at risk of being infected with HCV (84%). Women who were single [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.8] and who were of non-white ethnic origin (adjusted OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.0-6.2) were also significantly more inclined to hypothetically accept an HCV test.

CONCLUSION

Selective HCV testing to those women at high risk of HCV infection should be encouraged in the family planning setting.