Kathleen E Corey1,2, Matthew J Klebanoff3,4, Angela C Tramontano4, Raymond T Chung3,5, Chin Hur3,5,4. 1. Gastrointestinal Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. kcorey@partners.org. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. kcorey@partners.org. 3. Gastrointestinal Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Individuals with type 2 diabetes are at heightened risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which gives rise to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and cirrhosis. Yet, current guidelines do not recommend screening for NASH among these high-risk patients. Using a simulation model, we assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening diabetic patients for NASH. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to compare two management strategies for 50-year-olds with diabetes. In the No Screening strategy, patients do not undergo screening, although NASH may be diagnosed incidentally over their lifetime. In the NASH Screening strategy, all patients receive a one-time screening ultrasound. Individuals with fatty infiltration on ultrasound then have a liver biopsy, and those found to have NASH receive medical therapy, which decreases progression to cirrhosis. Endpoints evaluated included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Screening for NASH decreased the number of individuals who developed cirrhosis by 12.9 % and resulted in an 11.9 % decrease in liver-related deaths. However, screening resulted in 0.02 fewer QALYs, due to the disutility associated with treatment, and was therefore dominated by the No Screening strategy. When the model excluded this quality-of-life decrement, screening became cost-effective, at an ICER of $42,134 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for NASH may improve liver-related outcomes, but is not cost-effective at present, due to side effects of therapy. As better tolerated treatments for NASH become available, even with modest efficacy, screening for NASH will become cost-effective.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Individuals with type 2 diabetes are at heightened risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which gives rise to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and cirrhosis. Yet, current guidelines do not recommend screening for NASH among these high-risk patients. Using a simulation model, we assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening diabeticpatients for NASH. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to compare two management strategies for 50-year-olds with diabetes. In the No Screening strategy, patients do not undergo screening, although NASH may be diagnosed incidentally over their lifetime. In the NASH Screening strategy, all patients receive a one-time screening ultrasound. Individuals with fatty infiltration on ultrasound then have a liver biopsy, and those found to have NASH receive medical therapy, which decreases progression to cirrhosis. Endpoints evaluated included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Screening for NASH decreased the number of individuals who developed cirrhosis by 12.9 % and resulted in an 11.9 % decrease in liver-related deaths. However, screening resulted in 0.02 fewer QALYs, due to the disutility associated with treatment, and was therefore dominated by the No Screening strategy. When the model excluded this quality-of-life decrement, screening became cost-effective, at an ICER of $42,134 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for NASH may improve liver-related outcomes, but is not cost-effective at present, due to side effects of therapy. As better tolerated treatments for NASH become available, even with modest efficacy, screening for NASH will become cost-effective.
Authors: Nihar R Desai; William H Shrank; Michael A Fischer; Jerry Avorn; Joshua N Liberman; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Juliana Pakes; Troyen A Brennan; Niteesh K Choudhry Journal: Am J Med Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Nathalie C Leite; Cristiane A Villela-Nogueira; Vera L N Pannain; Adriana C Bottino; Guilherme F M Rezende; Claudia R L Cardoso; Gil F Salles Journal: Liver Int Date: 2011-02-20 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: M Prashanth; H K Ganesh; M V Vima; M John; T Bandgar; Shashank R Joshi; S R Shah; P M Rathi; A S Joshi; Hemangini Thakkar; P S Menon; N S Shah Journal: J Assoc Physicians India Date: 2009-03
Authors: Mary E Rinella; Rohit Loomba; Stephen H Caldwell; Kris Kowdley; Michael Charlton; Brent Tetri; Stephen A Harrison Journal: Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) Date: 2014-04
Authors: Jordan E Lake; Turner Overton; Susanna Naggie; Mark Sulkowski; Rohit Loomba; David E Kleiner; Jennifer C Price; Kara W Chew; Raymond T Chung; Kathleen E Corey Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 11.382