BACKGROUND/AIMS: To estimate the cost utility (cost per QALY) of screening for hepatitis C (HCV) infection in people attending genito-urinary medicine clinics in England. METHODS: An epidemiological model of screening and diagnosis was combined with a Markov chain model of treatment with combination therapy to estimate cost utility. Parameters for the model were informed by literature review, expert opinion and a survey of current screening practice. RESULTS: The base case estimate was about pound 85,000 per QALY. Selective screening is more cost effective. If screening is restricted to only 20% or 10% of attenders, cost utility is estimated as pound 39,647 and pound 34,288 per QALY. If screening is restricted only to those with a history of injecting drug use, cost utility would be pound 27,138 per QALY. Estimates are particularly sensitive to acceptance rates for screening and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening for HCV in GUM clinics is unlikely to be cost effective. There is limited evidence to support screening of people other than those with a history of injecting drug use and even this policy should be considered with some care and in the context of further research.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To estimate the cost utility (cost per QALY) of screening for hepatitis C (HCV) infection in people attending genito-urinary medicine clinics in England. METHODS: An epidemiological model of screening and diagnosis was combined with a Markov chain model of treatment with combination therapy to estimate cost utility. Parameters for the model were informed by literature review, expert opinion and a survey of current screening practice. RESULTS: The base case estimate was about pound 85,000 per QALY. Selective screening is more cost effective. If screening is restricted to only 20% or 10% of attenders, cost utility is estimated as pound 39,647 and pound 34,288 per QALY. If screening is restricted only to those with a history of injecting drug use, cost utility would be pound 27,138 per QALY. Estimates are particularly sensitive to acceptance rates for screening and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening for HCV in GUM clinics is unlikely to be cost effective. There is limited evidence to support screening of people other than those with a history of injecting drug use and even this policy should be considered with some care and in the context of further research.
Authors: Ava John-Baptiste; Man Wah Yeung; Victoria Leung; Gabrielle van der Velde; Murray Krahn Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 4.981
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: David T Arnold; Louise M Bentham; Ruth P Jacob; Richard J Lilford; Alan J Girling Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Susan J M Hahné; Irene K Veldhuijzen; Lucas Wiessing; Tek-Ang Lim; Mika Salminen; Marita van de Laar Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 3.090