Zoe Ward1, Nyashadzaishe Mafirakureva2, Jack Stone2, Mary Keevans3, Graham Betts-Symonds4, Desmond Crowley5, Tina McHugh6, Gordana Avramovic7, John S Lambert8, Peter Vickerman2. 1. University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom. Electronic address: zoe.ward@bristol.ac.uk. 2. University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom. 3. Irish Prison Service, Dublin, Republic of Ireland. 4. Irish Prison Service, Dublin, Republic of Ireland; Irish Red Cross, Dublin, Republic of Ireland. 5. Irish College of General Practitioners, Dublin, Republic of Ireland. 6. Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Republic of Ireland. 7. School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland. 8. Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Republic of Ireland; School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Irish prisons, there is a high proportion of people who inject drugs (PWID; 26%) and a high prevalence of HCV (16%), making prison a high priority setting for HCV testing and treatment. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a mass HCV screening intervention in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, compared to the standard-of-care of intermittent screening on committal. METHODS: Primary cost data was collected from the intervention using an overall provider perspective. Standard-of-care (SOC) costs were estimated through interview. All costs were inflated to 2020 Euros. An HCV transmission and disease progression model among incarcerated and community PWID and ex-injectors was calibrated to the Dublin HCV epidemic, allowing inclusion of population-level health benefits. The model used intervention data, suggesting 419 individuals were screened, 50 HCV infections diagnosed and 32 individuals initiated treatment, to project the resulting costs and health benefits (quality adjusted life years or QALYs) over 50 years with 5% discounting. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost per QALY gained, was estimated for the screening intervention compared to the standard-of-care. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) determined the probability that the intervention was cost-effective compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY as used in Ireland. The ICER for 1- or 3-yearly mass screening in all Dublin prisons was also calculated. RESULTS: The total direct costs of the intervention (not including treatment drug costs) was €82,392, with most costs being due to staff (43%) and overhead or management costs (38%). Despite having little epidemiological impact due to the small numbers treated, over 50 years the incremental cost of the intervention was €36,592 and 3.8 QALYs were gained, giving a mean ICER of €9,552/QALY. The majority (84%) of PSA runs were below the willingness-to-pay threshold. Yearly mass screening had an ICER of €2,729/QALY compared to SOC and gave a higher net monetary benefit (€7,393,382) than screening every 3 years (€6,252,816). CONCLUSION: Prison mass screening could be a cost-effective initiative for increasing testing and treatment of HCV in Ireland.
BACKGROUND: In Irish prisons, there is a high proportion of people who inject drugs (PWID; 26%) and a high prevalence of HCV (16%), making prison a high priority setting for HCV testing and treatment. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a mass HCV screening intervention in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, compared to the standard-of-care of intermittent screening on committal. METHODS: Primary cost data was collected from the intervention using an overall provider perspective. Standard-of-care (SOC) costs were estimated through interview. All costs were inflated to 2020 Euros. An HCV transmission and disease progression model among incarcerated and community PWID and ex-injectors was calibrated to the Dublin HCV epidemic, allowing inclusion of population-level health benefits. The model used intervention data, suggesting 419 individuals were screened, 50 HCV infections diagnosed and 32 individuals initiated treatment, to project the resulting costs and health benefits (quality adjusted life years or QALYs) over 50 years with 5% discounting. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost per QALY gained, was estimated for the screening intervention compared to the standard-of-care. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) determined the probability that the intervention was cost-effective compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY as used in Ireland. The ICER for 1- or 3-yearly mass screening in all Dublin prisons was also calculated. RESULTS: The total direct costs of the intervention (not including treatment drug costs) was €82,392, with most costs being due to staff (43%) and overhead or management costs (38%). Despite having little epidemiological impact due to the small numbers treated, over 50 years the incremental cost of the intervention was €36,592 and 3.8 QALYs were gained, giving a mean ICER of €9,552/QALY. The majority (84%) of PSA runs were below the willingness-to-pay threshold. Yearly mass screening had an ICER of €2,729/QALY compared to SOC and gave a higher net monetary benefit (€7,393,382) than screening every 3 years (€6,252,816). CONCLUSION: Prison mass screening could be a cost-effective initiative for increasing testing and treatment of HCV in Ireland.
Authors: Eve Wittenberg; Jeremy W Bray; Achamyeleh Gebremariam; Brandon Aden; Bohdan Nosyk; Bruce R Schackman Journal: Value Health Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 5.725
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: Joanne Csete; Adeeba Kamarulzaman; Michel Kazatchkine; Frederick Altice; Marek Balicki; Julia Buxton; Javier Cepeda; Megan Comfort; Eric Goosby; João Goulão; Carl Hart; Thomas Kerr; Alejandro Madrazo Lajous; Stephen Lewis; Natasha Martin; Daniel Mejía; Adriana Camacho; David Mathieson; Isidore Obot; Adeolu Ogunrombi; Susan Sherman; Jack Stone; Nandini Vallath; Peter Vickerman; Tomáš Zábranský; Chris Beyrer Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Desmond Crowley; John S Lambert; Graham Betts-Symonds; Walter Cullen; Mary Keevans; Enda Kelly; Eamon Laird; Tina McHugh; Susan McKiernan; Sarah Jayne Miggin; Carol Murphy; Ross Murtagh; Deirdre O'Reilly; Ciara Tobin; Marie Claire Van Hout Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2019-04
Authors: Dan Lewer; Robert W Aldridge; Dee Menezes; Clare Sawyer; Paola Zaninotto; Martin Dedicoat; Imtiaz Ahmed; Serena Luchenski; Andrew Hayward; Alistair Story Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 2.692