Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of universal screening for chronic hepatitis B virus infection in China: an economic evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

China 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.

Methods

We 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.

Findings

With 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.

Interpretation

The 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.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China.

SUBMITTER: Su S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8789560 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLow-cost generic direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens for treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) are available in several low-income/middle-income countries, important for treatment scale-up. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of genotype-dependent and pan-genotypic DAA regimens in Iran as an example of a resource-limited setting.MethodsA Markov model was developed to simulate HCV natural history. A decision tree was developed for HCV treatment, assuming four scenarios, including scenario 1: genotyping, sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) for genotype 1, and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (SOF/DCV) for genotype 3; scenario 2: genotyping, SOF/LDV for genotype 1, and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) for genotype 3; scenario 3: no genotyping and SOF/DCV for all; and scenario 4: no genotyping and SOF/VEL for all. A 1-year cycle length was used to calculate the cumulative cost and effectiveness over a lifetime time horizon. We calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using a health system perspective. Costs were converted to US dollars using purchasing power parity exchange rate ($PPP). All costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3%.ResultsAmong people with no cirrhosis, scenario 3 had the minimum cost, compared with which scenario 4 was cost-effective with an ICER of 4583 $PPP per QALY (willingness-to-pay threshold: 9,311 $PPP per QALY). Among both people with compensated or decompensated cirrhosis, scenario 4 was cost saving. In sensitivity analysis, scenario 4 would be also cost-saving among people with no cirrhosis provided a 39% reduction in the cost of 12 weeks SOF/VEL.ConclusionInitiating all patients on pan-genotypic generic DAA regimens with no pretreatment genotyping was cost-effective compared with scenarios requiring pretreatment HCV genotype tests. Among generic pan-genotypic DAA regimens, SOF/VEL was cost-effective, for people with no cirrhosis and cost-saving for those with cirrhosis.

Project description:ObjectivesHearing loss is one of the most prevalent congenital disorders among children. Many countries have implemented universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) for the early diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss. Despite widespread implementation, the value for money of UNHS is unclear due to lack of cost and outcomes data from rigorous study designs. The objective of this research is to conduct a within-study cost-effectiveness analysis of UNHS compared with targeted screening (targeting children with risk factors of hearing loss) from the Australian healthcare system perspective. This evaluation is the first economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of UNHS compared to targeted screening using real-world data from a natural experiment.DesignThe evaluation assumed the Australian healthcare system perspective and considered a time horizon of 5 years. Utilities were estimated using responses to the Health Utilities Index Mark III. Screening costs were estimated based on the Victorian Infant Hearing Screening Program. Ongoing costs were estimated based on administrative data, while external data sources were used to estimate costs related to hearing services. Missing data were handled using the multiple imputation method. Outcome measures included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and four language and communication-related outcomes: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability, Progressive Achievement Test, and comprehensive, expressive, and total language scores based on the Preschool Language Scale.ResultsOn average, the UNHS cost an extra Australian dollar (A$)22,000 per diagnosed child and was associated with 0.45 more QALYs per diagnosed child compared with targeted screening to 5 years, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of A$48,000 per QALY gained. The ICERs for language outcomes lay between A$3,900 (for expressive language score) and A$83,500 per one-point improvement in language score (for Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability). UNHS had a 69% probability of being more cost-effective compared to targeted screening at a willingness to pay threshold of A$60,000 per QALY gained. ICERs were most sensitive to the screening costs.ConclusionsThe evaluation demonstrated the usefulness of a within-study economic evaluation to understand the value for money of the UNHS program in the Australian context. Findings from this evaluation suggested that screening costs were the key driver of cost-effectiveness results. Most outcomes were not significantly different between UNHS and targeted screening groups. The ICER may be overestimated due to the short follow-up period. Further research is warranted to include long-term resource use and outcome data, late diagnosis, transition and remission between severity levels, and timing of diagnosis and treatment.

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:Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 is the most prevalent HCV infection in China. Sofosbuvir-based direct antiviral agent (DAA) regimens are the current mainstays of treatment. Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) regimens became reimbursable in China in 2020. Thus, this study aimed to identify the optimal SOF-based regimen and to inform efficient use of healthcare resources by optimizing DAA use in treating HCV genotype 1. Methods and Models: A modeling-based cost-utility analysis was conducted from the payer's perspective targeting adult Chinese patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. Direct medical costs and health utilities were inputted into a Markov model to simulate lifetime experiences of chronically infected HCV patients after receiving SOF/LDV, SOF/VEL or the traditional strategy of pegylated interferon (pegIFN) + ribavirin (RBV). Discounted lifetime cost and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed and compared to generate the incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR). An ICUR below the threshold of 31,500 $/QALY suggests cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of model findings. Results: Both SOF/LDV and SOF/VEL regimens were dominant to the pegIFN + RBV regimen by creating more QALYs and incurring less cost. SOF/LDV produced 0.542 more QALYs but cost $10,390 less than pegIFN + RBV. Relative to SOF/LDV, SOF/VEL had an ICUR of 168,239 $/QALY which did not meet the cost-effectiveness standard. Therefore SOF/LDV was the optimal strategy. These findings were robust to linear and random variations of model parameters. However, reducing the SOF/VEL price by 40% would make this regimen the most cost-effective option. Conclusions: SOF/LDV was found to be the most cost-effective treatment, and SOF/VEL was also economically dominant to pegIFN + RBV. These findings indicated that replacing pegIFN + RBV with DAA regimens could be a promising strategy.