M E Singer1, Z M Younossi. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of screening for hepatitis C in asymptomatic, average-risk adults. METHODS: We used a Markov decision analysis model to estimate the lifetime cost effectiveness of three screening strategies: (1) initial screening for hepatitis C antibody by third-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), followed by confirmatory testing for hepatitis C virus ribonucleic acid (RNA) using polymerase chain reaction (PCR); (2) initial screening for hepatitis C virus RNA by PCR only; and (3) the current practice of not screening. The patient population comprised a hypothetical cohort of average-risk adults presenting to their regular primary health care provider for routine physical examination. The main outcome measure was cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: The no screening strategy was the dominant strategy in the baseline analysis. The model was most sensitive to the reduction in quality of life related to patient awareness of hepatitis C infection. Screening with ELISA and PCR was preferred when this value was <0.01 and was cost effective if more than half of the patients who tested positive for hepatitis C actually initiated treatment, or if the annual rate of progression to cirrhosis was greater than 2.5%. Screening with PCR only was never cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis does not support the widespread screening for hepatitis C among asymptomatic, average-risk adults.
PURPOSE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of screening for hepatitis C in asymptomatic, average-risk adults. METHODS: We used a Markov decision analysis model to estimate the lifetime cost effectiveness of three screening strategies: (1) initial screening for hepatitis C antibody by third-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), followed by confirmatory testing for hepatitis C virus ribonucleic acid (RNA) using polymerase chain reaction (PCR); (2) initial screening for hepatitis C virus RNA by PCR only; and (3) the current practice of not screening. The patient population comprised a hypothetical cohort of average-risk adults presenting to their regular primary health care provider for routine physical examination. The main outcome measure was cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: The no screening strategy was the dominant strategy in the baseline analysis. The model was most sensitive to the reduction in quality of life related to patient awareness of hepatitis C infection. Screening with ELISA and PCR was preferred when this value was <0.01 and was cost effective if more than half of the patients who tested positive for hepatitis C actually initiated treatment, or if the annual rate of progression to cirrhosis was greater than 2.5%. Screening with PCR only was never cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis does not support the widespread screening for hepatitis C among asymptomatic, average-risk adults.
Authors: Marisol Peña-Orellana; Adriana Hernández-Viver; Glorimar Caraballo-Correa; Carmen E Albizu-García Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2011-08
Authors: W N Southern; M-L Drainoni; B D Smith; C L Christiansen; D McKee; A L Gifford; C M Weinbaum; D Thompson; E Koppelman; S Maher; A H Litwin Journal: J Viral Hepat Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 3.728
Authors: David D Kim; David W Hutton; Ahmed A Raouf; Mohsen Salama; Ahmed Hablas; Ibrahim A Seifeldin; Amr S Soliman Journal: Glob Public Health Date: 2014-12-03
Authors: Lauren E Cipriano; Gregory S Zaric; Mark Holodniy; Eran Bendavid; Douglas K Owens; Margaret L Brandeau Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Bruce R Schackman; Jared A Leff; Devra M Barter; Madeline A DiLorenzo; Daniel J Feaster; Lisa R Metsch; Kenneth A Freedberg; Benjamin P Linas Journal: Addiction Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 7.256
Authors: Boris Kauhl; Jeanne Heil; Christian J P A Hoebe; Jürgen Schweikart; Thomas Krafft; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 3.240