Dataset Information

The cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic hepatitis B infection in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality in the United States. Current guidelines suggest screening populations with a prevalence of ?2%. Our objective was to determine whether this screening threshold is cost-effective and whether screening lower-prevalence populations might also be cost-effective.

Methods

We developed a Markov state transition model to examine screening of asymptomatic outpatients in the United States. The base case was a 35-year-old man living in a region with an HBV infection prevalence of 2%. Interventions (versus no screening) included screening for Hepatitis B surface antigen followed by treatment of appropriate patients with (1) pegylated interferon-?2a for 48 weeks, (2) a low-cost nucleoside or nucleotide agent with a high rate of developing viral resistance for 48 weeks, (3) prolonged treatment with low-cost, high-resistance nucleoside or nucleotide, or (4) prolonged treatment with a high-cost nucleoside or nucleotide with a low rate of developing viral resistance. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs in 2008 US dollars.

Results

Screening followed by treatment with a low-cost, high-resistance nucleoside or nucleotide was cost-effective ($29,230 per QALY). Sensitivity analyses revealed that screening costs <$50,000 per QALY in extremely low-risk populations unless the prevalence of chronic HBV infection is <.3%.

Conclusions

The 2% threshold for prevalence of chronic HBV infection in current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/US Public Health Service screening guidelines is cost-effective. Furthermore, screening of adults in the United States in lower-prevalence populations (eg, as low as .3%) also is likely to be cost-effective, suggesting that current health policy should be reconsidered.

SUBMITTER: Eckman MH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3097367 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic hepatitis B infection in the United States.

Eckman Mark H MH Kaiser Tiffany E TE Sherman Kenneth E KE

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 20110502 11

<h4>Background</h4>Hepatitis B virus (HBV) continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality in the United States. Current guidelines suggest screening populations with a prevalence of ≥2%. Our objective was to determine whether this screening threshold is cost-effective and whether screening lower-prevalence populations might also be cost-effective.<h4>Methods</h4>We developed a Markov state transition model to examine screening of asymptomatic outpatients in the United States. The base ca ...[more]

PMID: 21540206

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNo consensus exists on screening to detect the estimated 2 million Americans unaware of their chronic hepatitis C infections. Advisory groups differ, recommending birth-cohort screening for baby boomers, screening only high-risk individuals, or no screening. We assessed one-time risk assessment and screening to identify previously undiagnosed 40-74 year-olds given newly available hepatitis C treatments.Methods and findingsA Markov model evaluated alternative risk-factor guided and birth-cohort screening and treatment strategies. Risk factors included drug use history, blood transfusion before 1992, and multiple sexual partners. Analyses of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey provided sex-, race-, age-, and risk-factor-specific hepatitis C prevalence and mortality rates. Nine strategies combined screening (no screening, risk-factor guided screening, or birth-cohort screening) and treatment (standard therapy-peginterferon alfa and ribavirin, Interleukin-28B-guided (IL28B) triple-therapy-standard therapy plus a protease inhibitor, or universal triple therapy). Response-guided treatment depended on HCV genotype. Outcomes include discounted lifetime costs (2010 dollars) and quality adjusted life-years (QALYs). Compared to no screening, risk-factor guided and birth-cohort screening for 50 year-olds gained 0.7 to 3.5 quality adjusted life-days and cost $168 to $568 per person. Birth-cohort screening provided more benefit per dollar than risk-factor guided screening and cost $65,749 per QALY if followed by universal triple therapy compared to screening followed by IL28B-guided triple therapy. If only 10% of screen-detected, eligible patients initiate treatment at each opportunity, birth-cohort screening with universal triple therapy costs $241,100 per QALY. Assuming treatment with triple therapy, screening all individuals aged 40-64 years costs less than $100,000 per QALY.ConclusionsThe cost-effectiveness of one-time birth-cohort hepatitis C screening for 40-64 year olds is comparable to other screening programs, provided that the healthcare system has sufficient capacity to deliver prompt treatment and appropriate follow-on care to many newly screen-detected individuals.

Project description:BackgroundChina has the highest prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection worldwide. Universal HBV screening might enable China to reach the WHO 2030 target of 90% diagnostics, 80% treatment, and 65% HBV-related death reduction, and eventually elimination of viral hepatitis. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of implementing universal HBV screening in China and identified optimal screening strategies.MethodsWe used a Markov cohort model, inputting parameters based on data from previous studies and public databases, to assess the cost-effectiveness of four HBV serological screening strategies in China in different screening scenarios. We simulated universal screening scenarios in 15 adult age groups between 18 and 70 years, with different years of screening implementation (2021, 2026, and 2031) and compared to the status quo (ie, no universal screening); in total, we investigated 180 different screening scenarios. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the different screening strategies and the status quo (current screening strategy). We performed probabilistic and one-way deterministic sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings.FindingsWith a willingness-to-pay level of three times the Chinese gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (US$30 828), all universal screening scenarios in 2021 were cost-effective compared with the status quo. The serum HBsAg/HBsAb/HBeAg/HBeAb/HBcAb (five-test) screening strategy in people aged 18-70 years was the most cost-effective strategy in 2021 (ICER $18 295/quality-adjusted life-years [QALY] gained). This strategy remained the most cost-effective, when the willingness-to-pay threshold was reduced to 2 times GDP per capita. The two-test strategy for people aged 18-70 years became more cost-effective at lower willingness-to-pay levels. The five-test strategy could prevent 3·46 million liver-related deaths in China over the lifetime of the cohort. It remained the most cost-effective strategy when implementation was delayed until 2026 (ICER $20 183/QALY) and 2031 (ICER $23 123/QALY). Screening young people (18-30 years) will no longer be cost-effective in delayed scenarios.InterpretationThe five-test universal screening strategy in people aged 18-70 years, implemented within the next 10 years, is the optimal HBV screening strategy for China. Other screening strategies could be cost-effective alternatives, if budget is limited in rural areas. Delaying strategy implementation reduces overall cost-effectiveness. Early screening initiation will aid global efforts in achieving viral hepatitis elimination.FundingNational Natural Science Foundation of China.

Dataset Information

The cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic hepatitis B infection in the United States.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic hepatitis B infection in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets