Eric Zhang1,2, Claire Wartelle-Bladou3, Luigi Lepanto1,4, Jean Lachaine5, Guy Cloutier1,2, An Tang6,7. 1. Department of Radiology, Radio-Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Montreal, Saint-Luc Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2. Laboratory of Biorheology and Medical Ultrasonics, University of Montreal Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Montreal, Saint-Luc Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 4. Health Technology Assessment Unit, University of Montreal, Saint-Luc Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 5. Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmacoeconomics, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 6. Department of Radiology, Radio-Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Montreal, Saint-Luc Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. an.tang@umontreal.ca. 7. Laboratory of Biorheology and Medical Ultrasonics, University of Montreal Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada. an.tang@umontreal.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common liver disease in Western countries. No studies have examined the cost-effectiveness of screening its advanced form, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis of annual noninvasive screening strategies using third-party payer perspective in a general population in comparison to screening a high-risk obese or diabetic population. Screening algorithms involved well-studied techniques, including NAFLD fibrosis score, transient elastography (TE), and acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging for detecting advanced fibrosis (≥ F3); and plasma cytokeratin (CK)-18 for NASH detection. Liver biopsy and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) were compared as confirmation methods. Canadian dollar (CAD or C$) costs were adjusted for inflation and discounted at 5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ≤C$ 50,000 was considered cost-effective. RESULTS: Compared with no screening, screening with NAFLD fibrosis score/TE/CK-18 algorithm with MRE as confirmation for advanced fibrosis had an ICER of C$ 26,143 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Screening in high-risk obese or diabetic populations was more cost-effective, with an ICER of C$ 9,051 and C$ 7,991 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively. Liver biopsy confirmation was not found to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that annual NASH screening in high-risk obese or diabetic populations can be cost-effective. KEY POINTS: • This cost-utility analysis suggests that screening for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis may be cost-effective. • In particular, screening of high-risk obese or diabetic populations is more cost-effective. • Magnetic resonance elastography was more cost-effective to confirm disease compared to biopsy. • More studies are needed to determine quality of life in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. • More management strategies for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are also needed.
OBJECTIVES:Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common liver disease in Western countries. No studies have examined the cost-effectiveness of screening its advanced form, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis of annual noninvasive screening strategies using third-party payer perspective in a general population in comparison to screening a high-risk obese or diabetic population. Screening algorithms involved well-studied techniques, including NAFLD fibrosis score, transient elastography (TE), and acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging for detecting advanced fibrosis (≥ F3); and plasma cytokeratin (CK)-18 for NASH detection. Liver biopsy and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) were compared as confirmation methods. Canadian dollar (CAD or C$) costs were adjusted for inflation and discounted at 5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ≤C$ 50,000 was considered cost-effective. RESULTS: Compared with no screening, screening with NAFLD fibrosis score/TE/CK-18 algorithm with MRE as confirmation for advanced fibrosis had an ICER of C$ 26,143 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Screening in high-risk obese or diabetic populations was more cost-effective, with an ICER of C$ 9,051 and C$ 7,991 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively. Liver biopsy confirmation was not found to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that annual NASH screening in high-risk obese or diabetic populations can be cost-effective. KEY POINTS: • This cost-utility analysis suggests that screening for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis may be cost-effective. • In particular, screening of high-risk obese or diabetic populations is more cost-effective. • Magnetic resonance elastography was more cost-effective to confirm disease compared to biopsy. • More studies are needed to determine quality of life in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. • More management strategies for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are also needed.
Authors: Naga P Chalasani; Arun J Sanyal; Kris V Kowdley; Patricia R Robuck; Jay Hoofnagle; David E Kleiner; Aynur Unalp; James Tonascia Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Mark L Palmeri; Michael H Wang; Ned C Rouze; Manal F Abdelmalek; Cynthia D Guy; Barry Moser; Anna Mae Diehl; Kathryn R Nightingale Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Mariana Lazo; Ruben Hernaez; Mark S Eberhardt; Susanne Bonekamp; Ihab Kamel; Eliseo Guallar; Ayman Koteish; Frederick L Brancati; Jeanne M Clark Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Ariel E Feldstein; Anna Wieckowska; A Rocio Lopez; Yao-Chang Liu; Nizar N Zein; Arthur J McCullough Journal: Hepatology Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Ashvin Bashyam; Chris J Frangieh; Siavash Raigani; Jeremy Sogo; Roderick T Bronson; Korkut Uygun; Heidi Yeh; Dennis A Ausiello; Michael J Cima Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 25.671
Authors: Rick A Vreman; Alex J Goodell; Luis A Rodriguez; Travis C Porco; Robert H Lustig; James G Kahn Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 2.692