Joshua A Barocas1, Abriana Tasillo2, Golnaz Eftekhari Yazdi2, Jianing Wang2, Claudia Vellozzi3, Susan Hariri3, Cheryl Isenhour3, Liisa Randall4, John W Ward3, Jonathan Mermin5, Joshua A Salomon6, Benjamin P Linas2,7. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Division of Infectious Diseases, Boston Medical Center, Massachusetts, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Division of Viral Hepatitis, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston. 5. National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Stanford University Department of Medicine, California. 7. Boston University School of Medicine, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Background: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend one-time hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing for persons born 1945-1965 and targeted testing for high-risk persons. This strategy targets HCV testing to a prevalent population at high risk for HCV morbidity and mortality, but does not include younger populations with high incidence. To address this gap and improve access to HCV testing, age-based strategies should be considered. Methods: We used a simulation of HCV to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HCV testing strategies: 1) standard of care (SOC) - recommendation for one-time testing for all persons born 1945-1965, 2) recommendation for one-time testing for adults ≥40 years (≥40 strategy), 3) ≥30 years (≥30 strategy), and 4) ≥18 years (≥18 strategy). All strategies assumed targeted testing of high-risk persons. Inputs were derived from national databases, observational cohorts and clinical trials. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life expectancy, costs, and cost-effectiveness. Results: Expanded age-based testing strategies increased US population lifetime case identification and cure rates. Greatest increases were observed in the ≥18 strategy. Compared to the SOC, this strategy resulted in an estimated 256,000 additional infected persons identified and 280,000 additional cures at the lowest cost per QALY gained (ICER = $28,000/QALY). Conclusions: In addition to risk-based testing, one-time HCV testing of persons 18 and older appears to be cost-effective, leads to improved clinical outcomes and identifies more persons with HCV than the current birth cohort recommendations. These findings could be considered for future recommendation revisions.
Background: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend one-time hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing for persons born 1945-1965 and targeted testing for high-risk persons. This strategy targets HCV testing to a prevalent population at high risk for HCV morbidity and mortality, but does not include younger populations with high incidence. To address this gap and improve access to HCV testing, age-based strategies should be considered. Methods: We used a simulation of HCV to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HCV testing strategies: 1) standard of care (SOC) - recommendation for one-time testing for all persons born 1945-1965, 2) recommendation for one-time testing for adults ≥40 years (≥40 strategy), 3) ≥30 years (≥30 strategy), and 4) ≥18 years (≥18 strategy). All strategies assumed targeted testing of high-risk persons. Inputs were derived from national databases, observational cohorts and clinical trials. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life expectancy, costs, and cost-effectiveness. Results: Expanded age-based testing strategies increased US population lifetime case identification and cure rates. Greatest increases were observed in the ≥18 strategy. Compared to the SOC, this strategy resulted in an estimated 256,000 additional infected persons identified and 280,000 additional cures at the lowest cost per QALY gained (ICER = $28,000/QALY). Conclusions: In addition to risk-based testing, one-time HCV testing of persons 18 and older appears to be cost-effective, leads to improved clinical outcomes and identifies more persons with HCV than the current birth cohort recommendations. These findings could be considered for future recommendation revisions.
Authors: E B Tapper; B R Bacon; M P Curry; D T Dieterich; S L Flamm; L E Guest; K V Kowdley; Y Lee; N C Tsai; Z M Younossi; N H Afdhal Journal: J Viral Hepat Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 3.728
Authors: Benjamin P Linas; Angela Y Wong; Bruce R Schackman; Arthur Y Kim; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Zobair M Younossi; Haesuk Park; Staurt C Gordon; John R Ferguson; Aijaz Ahmed; Douglas Dieterich; Sammy Saab Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Adriaan J van der Meer; Bart J Veldt; Jordan J Feld; Heiner Wedemeyer; Jean-François Dufour; Frank Lammert; Andres Duarte-Rojo; E Jenny Heathcote; Michael P Manns; Lorenz Kuske; Stefan Zeuzem; W Peter Hofmann; Robert J de Knegt; Bettina E Hansen; Harry L A Janssen Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-12-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eshan U Patel; Shruti H Mehta; Denali Boon; Thomas C Quinn; David L Thomas; Aaron A R Tobian Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Harrys A Torres; Anna S Lok; Maria E Suarez-Almazor; Carla L Warneke; Ahmed Kaseb; Ethan Miller; Erich M Sturgis; Jessica T Foreman; Georgios Angelidakis; Sairah Ahmed; Alessandra Ferrajoli; Felipe Samaniego; Ernest T Hawk; Jessica P Hwang Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Paul G Carty; Christopher G Fawsitt; Paddy Gillespie; Patricia Harrington; Michelle O'Neill; Susan M Smith; Conor Teljeur; Mairin Ryan Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2021-12-06 Impact factor: 3.686