Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Testing and Treatment for Hepatitis B Virus and Hepatitis C Virus Infections: An Analysis by Scenarios, Regions, and Income.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Testing and treatment for hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are highly effective, high-impact interventions. This article aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of scaling up these interventions by scenarios, regions, and income groups.

Methods

We modeled costs and impacts of hepatitis elimination in 67 low- and middle-income countries from 2016 to 2030. Costs included testing and treatment commodities, healthcare consultations, and future savings from cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinomas averted. We modeled disease progression to estimate disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted. We estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) by regions and World Bank income groups, according to 3 scenarios: flatline (status quo), progress (testing/treatment according to World Health Organization guidelines), and ambitious (elimination).

Results

Compared with no action, current levels of testing and treatment had an ICER of $807/DALY for HBV and -$62/DALY (cost-saving) for HCV. Scaling up to progress scenario, both interventions had ICERs less than the average gross domestic product/capita of countries (HBV: $532/DALY; HCV: $613/DALY). Scaling up from flatline to elimination led to higher ICERs across countries (HBV: $927/DALY; HCV: $2528/DALY, respectively) that remained lower than the average gross domestic product/capita. Sensitivity analysis indicated discount rates and commodity costs were main factors driving results.

Conclusions

Scaling up testing and treatment for HBV and HCV infection as per World Health Organization guidelines is a cost-effective intervention. Elimination leads to a much larger impact though ICERs are higher. Price reduction strategies are needed to achieve elimination given the substantial budget impact at current commodity prices.

SUBMITTER: Tordrup D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7806510 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Testing and Treatment for Hepatitis B Virus and Hepatitis C Virus Infections: An Analysis by Scenarios, Regions, and Income.

Tordrup David D Hutin Yvan Y Stenberg Karin K Lauer Jeremy A JA Hutton David W DW Toy Mehlika M Scott Nick N Chhatwal Jagpreet J Ball Andrew A

Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 20201009 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>Testing and treatment for hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are highly effective, high-impact interventions. This article aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of scaling up these interventions by scenarios, regions, and income groups.<h4>Methods</h4>We modeled costs and impacts of hepatitis elimination in 67 low- and middle-income countries from 2016 to 2030. Costs included testing and treatment commodities, healthcare consultations, and future s ...[more]

PMID: 33248510

Similar Datasets

Project description:Globally, there are approximately 58 million people with chronic hepatitis C virus infection (HCV) but only 20% have been diagnosed. HCV self-testing (HCVST) could reach those who have never been tested and increase uptake of HCV testing services. We compared cost per HCV viraemic diagnosis or cure for HCVST versus facility-based HCV testing services. We used a decision analysis model with a one-year time horizon to examine the key drivers of economic cost per diagnosis or cure following the introduction of HCVST in China (men who have sex with men), Georgia (men 40-49 years), Viet Nam (people who inject drugs, PWID), and Kenya (PWID). HCV antibody (HCVAb) prevalence ranged from 1%-60% across settings. Model parameters in each setting were informed by HCV testing and treatment programmes, HIV self-testing programmes, and expert opinion. In the base case, we assume a reactive HCVST is followed by a facility-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and then nucleic acid testing (NAT). We assumed oral-fluid HCVST costs of $5.63/unit ($0.87-$21.43 for facility-based RDT), 62% increase in testing following HCVST introduction, 65% linkage following HCVST, and 10% replacement of facility-based testing with HCVST based on HIV studies. Parameters were varied in sensitivity analysis. Cost per HCV viraemic diagnosis without HCVST ranged from $35 2019 US dollars (Viet Nam) to $361 (Kenya). With HCVST, diagnosis increased resulting in incremental cost per diagnosis of $104 in Viet Nam, $163 in Georgia, $587 in Kenya, and $2,647 in China. Differences were driven by HCVAb prevalence. Switching to blood-based HCVST ($2.25/test), increasing uptake of HCVST and linkage to facility-based care and NAT testing, or proceeding directly to NAT testing following HCVST, reduced the cost per diagnosis. The baseline incremental cost per cure was lowest in Georgia ($1,418), similar in Viet Nam ($2,033), and Kenya ($2,566), and highest in China ($4,956). HCVST increased the number of people tested, diagnosed, and cured, but at higher cost. Introducing HCVST is more cost-effective in populations with high prevalence.

Project description:IntroductionThe economic and health burden of sexually transmitted and genital infections (henceforth, STIs) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is substantial. Left untreated, STIs during pregnancy may result in several adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Timely diagnosis and treatment at point-of-care (POC) can potentially improve these outcomes. Despite the availability and promotion of POC diagnostics for STIs as a key component of antenatal care in LMICs, their widespread use has been limited, owing to the high economic costs faced by individuals and health systems. To date, there have been no systematic reviews which explore the cost or cost-effectiveness of POC testing and treatment of STIs in pregnancy in LMICs. The objective of this protocol is to outline the methods that will compare, synthesise and appraise the existing literature in this domain.Methods and analysisWe will conduct literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science. To find additional literature, we will search Google Scholar and hand search reference lists of included papers. Two reviewers will independently search databases, screen titles, abstracts and full texts; when necessary a third reviewer will resolve disputes. Only cost and cost-effectiveness studies of POC testing and treatment of STIs, including syphilis, chlamydia, trichomonas, gonorrhoea and bacterial vaginosis, in pregnancy in LMICs will be included. Published checklists will be used to assess quality of reporting practices and methodological approaches. We will also assess risk of publication bias. Interstudy heterogeneity will be assessed and depending on variation between studies, a meta-analysis or narrative synthesis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as the review will use published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed open source journal and presented at an international conference.Prospero registration numberCRD42018109072.

Project description:BackgroundThe estimated number of people living with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection acquired through sexual transmission was 103,000 in 2018, with an estimated incidence of 8300 new cases per year. Although hepatitis B (HepB) vaccination is recommended by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices for persons seeking evaluation and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), prevaccination testing is not yet recommended. Screening may link persons with chronic hepatitis B to care and reduce unnecessary vaccination.MethodsWe used a Markov model to calculate the health impact and cost-effectiveness of 1-time HBV testing combined with the first dose of the HepB vaccine for adults seeking care for STI. We ran a lifetime, societal perspective analysis for a hypothetical population of 100,000 aged 18 to 69 years. The disease progression estimates were taken from recent cohort studies and meta-analyses. In the United States, an intervention that costs less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is generally considered cost-effective. The strategies that were compared were as follows: (1) vaccination without HBV screening, (2) vaccination and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) screening, (3) vaccination and screening with HBsAg and anti-HBs, and (4) vaccination and screening with HBsAg, anti-HBs, and anti-HBc. Data were obtained from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid services reimbursement, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine price list, and additional cost-effectiveness literature.ResultsCompared with current recommendations, the addition of 1-time HBV testing is cost-saving and would prevent an additional 138 cases of cirrhosis, 47 cases of decompensated cirrhosis, 90 cases of hepatocellular carcinoma, 33 liver transplants, and 163 HBV-related deaths, and gain 2185 QALYs, per 100,000 adults screened. Screening with the 3-test panel would save $41.6 to $42.7 million per 100,000 adults tested compared with $41.5 to $42.5 million for the 2-test panel and $40.2 to $40.3 million for HBsAg alone.ConclusionsOne-time HBV prevaccination testing in addition to HepB vaccination for unvaccinated adults seeking care for STI would save lives and prevent new infections and unnecessary vaccination, and is cost-saving.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a complex intervention in primary care that aims to increase uptake of hepatitis C virus (HCV) case finding and treatment.DesignPragmatic, two armed, practice level, cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.Setting and participants45 general practices in South West England (22 randomised to intervention and 23 to control arm). Outcome data were collected from all intervention practices and 21/23 control practices. Total number of flagged patients was 24 473 (about 5% of practice list).InterventionElectronic algorithm and flag on practice systems identifying patients with HCV risk markers (such as history of opioid dependence or HCV tests with no evidence of referral to hepatology), staff educational training in HCV, and practice posters/leaflets to increase patients' awareness. Flagged patients were invited by letter for an HCV test (with one follow-up) and had on-screen pop-ups to encourage opportunistic testing. The intervention lasted one year, with practices recruited April to December 2016.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome: uptake of HCV testing.Secondary outcomesnumber of positive HCV tests and yield (proportion HCV positive); HCV treatment assessment at hepatology; cost effectiveness.ResultsBaseline HCV testing of flagged patients (six months before study start) was 608/13 097 (4.6%) in intervention practices and 380/11 376 (3.3%) in control practices. During the study 2071 (16%) of flagged patients in the intervention practices and 1163 (10%) in control practices were tested for HCV: overall intervention effect as an adjusted rate ratio of 1.59 (95% confidence interval 1.21 to 2.08; P<0.001). HCV antibodies were detected in 129 patients from intervention practices and 51 patients from control practices (adjusted rate ratio 2.24, 1.47 to 3.42) with weak evidence of an increase in yield (6.2% v 4.4%; adjusted risk ratio 1.40, 0.99 to 1.95). Referral and assessment increased in intervention practices compared with control practices (adjusted rate ratio 5.78, 1.6 to 21.6) with a risk difference of 1.3 per 1000 and a "number needed to help" of one extra HCV diagnosis, referral, and assessment per 792 (95% confidence interval 558 to 1883) patients flagged. The average cost of HCV case finding was £4.03 (95% confidence interval £2.27 to £5.80) per at risk patient and £3165 per additional patient assessed at hepatology. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was £6212 per quality adjusted life year (QALY), with 92.5% probability of being below £20 000 per QALY.ConclusionHepCATT had a modest impact but is a low cost intervention that merits optimisation and implementation as part of an NHS strategy to increase HCV testing and treatment.Trial registrationISRCTN61788850.

Project description:BackgroundTimely diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) is critical to achieve elimination goals. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of point-of-care testing strategies for HCV compared to laboratory-based testing in standard-of-care.MethodsCost-effectiveness analyses were undertaken from the perspective of Australian Governments as funders by modelling point-of-care testing strategies compared to standard-of-care in needle and syringe programs, drug treatment clinics, and prisons. Point-of-care testing strategies included immediate point-of-care HCV RNA testing and combined point-of-care HCV antibody and reflex RNA testing for HCV antibody positive people (with and without consideration of previous treatment). Sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the cost per treatment initiation with different testing strategies at different HCV antibody prevalence levels.FindingsThe average costs per HCV treatment initiation by point-of-care testing, from A$890 to A$1406, were up to 35% lower compared to standard-of-care ranging from A$1248 to A$1632 depending on settings. The average costs per treatment initiation by point-of-care testing for three settings ranged from A$1080 to A$1406 for RNA, A$960-A$1310 for combined antibody/RNA without treatment history consideration, and A$890-A$1189 for combined antibody/RNA with treatment history consideration. When HCV antibody prevalence was <74%, combined point-of-care HCV antibody and point-of-care RNA testing were the most cost-effective strategies. Modest increases in treatment uptake by 8%-31% were required for immediate point-of-care HCV RNA testing to achieve equivalent cost per treatment initiation compared to standard-of-care.InterpretationPoint-of-care testing is more cost-effective than standard of care for populations at risk of HCV. Testing strategies combining point-of-care HCV antibody and RNA testing are likely to be cost-effective in most settings.FundingNational Health and Medical Research Council.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Testing and Treatment for Hepatitis B Virus and Hepatitis C Virus Infections: An Analysis by Scenarios, Regions, and Income.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Testing and Treatment for Hepatitis B Virus and Hepatitis C Virus Infections: An Analysis by Scenarios, Regions, and Income.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets