BACKGROUND: In the United States, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is most prevalent among adults born from 1945 through 1965, and approximately 50% to 75% of infected adults are unaware of their infection. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of birth-cohort screening. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness simulation. DATA SOURCES: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, U.S. Census, Medicare reimbursement schedule, and published sources. TARGET POPULATION: Adults born from 1945 through 1965 with 1 or more visits to a primary care provider annually. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal, health care. INTERVENTION: One-time antibody test of 1945-1965 birth cohort. OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of cases that were identified and treated and that achieved a sustained viral response; liver disease and death from HCV; medical and productivity costs; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Compared with the status quo, birth-cohort screening identified 808,580 additional cases of chronic HCV infection at a screening cost of $2874 per case identified. Assuming that birth-cohort screening was followed by pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PEG-IFN+R) for treated patients, screening increased QALYs by 348,800 and costs by $5.5 billion, for an ICER of $15,700 per QALY gained. Assuming that birth-cohort screening was followed by direct-acting antiviral plus PEG-IFN+R treatment for treated patients, screening increased QALYs by 532,200 and costs by $19.0 billion, for an ICER of $35,700 per QALY saved. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The ICER of birth-cohort screening was most sensitive to sustained viral response of antiviral therapy, the cost of therapy, the discount rate, and the QALY losses assigned to disease states. LIMITATION: Empirical data on screening and direct-acting antiviral treatment in real-world clinical settings are scarce. CONCLUSION: Birth-cohort screening for HCV in primary care settings was cost-effective. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Division of Viral Hepatitis, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
BACKGROUND: In the United States, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is most prevalent among adults born from 1945 through 1965, and approximately 50% to 75% of infected adults are unaware of their infection. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of birth-cohort screening. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness simulation. DATA SOURCES: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, U.S. Census, Medicare reimbursement schedule, and published sources. TARGET POPULATION: Adults born from 1945 through 1965 with 1 or more visits to a primary care provider annually. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal, health care. INTERVENTION: One-time antibody test of 1945-1965 birth cohort. OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of cases that were identified and treated and that achieved a sustained viral response; liver disease and death from HCV; medical and productivity costs; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Compared with the status quo, birth-cohort screening identified 808,580 additional cases of chronic HCV infection at a screening cost of $2874 per case identified. Assuming that birth-cohort screening was followed by pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PEG-IFN+R) for treated patients, screening increased QALYs by 348,800 and costs by $5.5 billion, for an ICER of $15,700 per QALY gained. Assuming that birth-cohort screening was followed by direct-acting antiviral plus PEG-IFN+R treatment for treated patients, screening increased QALYs by 532,200 and costs by $19.0 billion, for an ICER of $35,700 per QALY saved. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The ICER of birth-cohort screening was most sensitive to sustained viral response of antiviral therapy, the cost of therapy, the discount rate, and the QALY losses assigned to disease states. LIMITATION: Empirical data on screening and direct-acting antiviral treatment in real-world clinical settings are scarce. CONCLUSION: Birth-cohort screening for HCV in primary care settings was cost-effective. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Division of Viral Hepatitis, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Authors: Hamish A Innes; Sharon J Hutchinson; Samuel Allen; Diptendu Bhattacharyya; Peter Bramley; Toby E S Delahooke; John F Dillon; Ewan Forrest; Andrew Fraser; Ruth Gillespie; David J Goldberg; Nicholas Kennedy; Scott McDonald; Allan McLeod; Peter R Mills; Judith Morris; Peter Hayes Journal: Hepatology Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: M J Englesbe; J Dimick; A Mathur; Y Ads; T H Welling; S J Pelletier; D G Heidt; J C Magee; R S Sung; J D Punch; D W Hanto; D A Campbell Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Scott A Allen; Anne C Spaulding; Albert M Osei; Lynn E Taylor; Asya M Cabral; Josiah D Rich Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Daniel John Smyth; Duncan Webster; Lisa Barrett; Mark MacMillan; Lisa McKnight; Frank Schweiger Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-11
Authors: Lesley S Miller; Francois Rollin; Shelly-Ann Fluker; Kristina L Lundberg; Brandi Park; Kristi Quairoli; Nyiramugisha K Niyibizi; Anne C Spaulding Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2016 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Robert P Myers; Pam Crotty; Susanna Town; Janine English; Kevin Fonseca; Raymond Tellier; Mark G Swain; S Elizabeth McGregor; Steven J Heitman; Robert J Hilsden Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2015-01-13
Authors: M Eugenia Socías; Kate Shannon; Julio S Montaner; Silvia Guillemi; Sabina Dobrer; Paul Nguyen; Shira Goldenberg; Kathleen Deering Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-10-22