Division of General Internal Medicine and the Center for Clinical Effectiveness, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Task Force for Global Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Apr;17(5):930-939.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.08.080. Epub 2018 Sep 8.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Most persons infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the United States were born from 1945 through 1965; testing is recommended for this cohort. However, HCV incidence is increasing among younger persons in many parts of the country and treatment is recommended for all adults with HCV infection. We aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness of universal 1-time screening for HCV infection in all adults living in the United States and to determine the prevalence of HCV antibody above which HCV testing is cost effective.
We developed a Markov state transition model to estimate the effects of universal 1-time screening of adults 18 years or older in the United States, compared with the current guideline-based strategy of screening adults born from 1945 through 1965. We compared potential outcomes of 1-time universal screening of adults or birth cohort screening followed by antiviral treatment of those with HCV infection vs no screening. We measured effectiveness with quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and costs with 2017 US dollars.
Based on our model, universal 1-time screening of US residents with a general population prevalence of HCV antibody greater than 0.07% cost less than $50,000/QALY compared with a strategy of no screening. Compared with 1-time birth cohort screening, universal 1-time screening and treatment cost $11,378/QALY gained. Universal screening was cost effective compared with birth cohort screening when the prevalence of HCV antibody positivity was greater than 0.07% among adults not in the cohort born from 1945 through 1965.
Using a Markov state transition model, we found a strategy of universal 1-time screening for chronic HCV infection to be cost effective compared with either no screening or birth cohort-based screening alone.
大多数在美国感染丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)的人出生于 1945 年至 1965 年之间;建议对这一人群进行检测。然而,在美国的许多地区,年轻人群中的 HCV 发病率正在上升,建议对所有 HCV 感染者进行治疗。我们旨在评估对所有居住在美国的成年人进行一次性普遍 HCV 感染筛查的成本效益,并确定 HCV 抗体检测具有成本效益的抗体阳性率。
我们开发了一个马尔可夫状态转移模型,以估计对美国 18 岁及以上成年人进行一次性普遍筛查的效果,与目前基于出生队列的筛查策略(筛查 1945 年至 1965 年出生的成年人)进行比较。我们比较了对成年人进行一次性普遍筛查或对 HCV 感染者进行出生队列筛查和抗病毒治疗与不进行筛查的潜在结果。我们使用质量调整生命年(QALY)衡量有效性,使用 2017 年美元衡量成本。
基于我们的模型,如果美国居民的 HCV 抗体普遍流行率大于 0.07%,则对所有人进行一次性普遍筛查的成本低于每 QALY 50000 美元,低于不进行筛查的策略。与一次性出生队列筛查相比,一次性普遍筛查和治疗每获得一个 QALY 的成本降低了 11378 美元。当 1945 年至 1965 年出生的非队列成年人的 HCV 抗体阳性率大于 0.07%时,与出生队列筛查相比,普遍筛查具有成本效益。
使用马尔可夫状态转移模型,我们发现对慢性 HCV 感染进行一次性普遍筛查的策略与不进行筛查或单独基于出生队列筛查相比具有成本效益。