22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cost-Effectiveness of HBV and HCV Screening Strategies – A Systematic Review of Existing Modelling Techniques

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of screening for Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) and Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) are generally heterogeneous in terms of risk groups, settings, screening intervention, outcomes and the economic modelling framework. It is therefore difficult to compare cost-effectiveness results between studies. This systematic review aims to summarise and critically assess existing economic models for HBV and HCV in order to identify the main methodological differences in modelling approaches.

          Methods

          A structured search strategy was developed and a systematic review carried out. A critical assessment of the decision-analytic models was carried out according to the guidelines and framework developed for assessment of decision-analytic models in Health Technology Assessment of health care interventions.

          Results

          The overall approach to analysing the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies was found to be broadly consistent for HBV and HCV. However, modelling parameters and related structure differed between models, producing different results. More recent publications performed better against a performance matrix, evaluating model components and methodology.

          Conclusion

          When assessing screening strategies for HBV and HCV infection, the focus should be on more recent studies, which applied the latest treatment regimes, test methods and had better and more complete data on which to base their models. In addition to parameter selection and associated assumptions, careful consideration of dynamic versus static modelling is recommended. Future research may want to focus on these methodological issues. In addition, the ability to evaluate screening strategies for multiple infectious diseases, (HCV and HIV at the same time) might prove important for decision makers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment.

          The use of decision-analytic modelling for the purpose of health technology assessment (HTA) has increased dramatically in recent years. Several guidelines for best practice have emerged in the literature; however, there is no agreed standard for what constitutes a 'good model' or how models should be formally assessed. The objective of this paper is to identify, review and consolidate existing guidelines on the use of decision-analytic modelling for the purpose of HTA and to develop a consistent framework against which the quality of models may be assessed. The review and resultant framework are summarised under the three key themes of Structure, Data and Consistency. 'Structural' aspects relate to the scope and mathematical structure of the model including the strategies under evaluation. Issues covered under the general heading of 'Data' include data identification methods and how uncertainty should be addressed. 'Consistency' relates to the overall quality of the model. The review of existing guidelines showed that although authors may provide a consistent message regarding some aspects of modelling, such as the need for transparency, they are contradictory in other areas. Particular areas of disagreement are how data should be incorporated into models and how uncertainty should be assessed. For the purpose of evaluation, the resultant framework is applied to a decision-analytic model developed as part of an appraisal for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK. As a further assessment, the review based on the framework is compared with an assessment provided by an independent experienced modeller not using the framework. It is hoped that the framework developed here may form part of the appraisals process for assessment bodies such as NICE and decision models submitted to peer review journals. However, given the speed with which decision-modelling methodology advances, there is a need for its continual update.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Infection with hepatitis B and C virus in Europe: a systematic review of prevalence and cost-effectiveness of screening

            Background Treatment for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is improving but not benefiting individuals unaware to be infected. To inform screening policies we assessed (1) the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and anti-hepatitis C virus antibody (anti-HCV-Ab) prevalence for 34 European countries; and (2) the cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic HBV and HCV infection. Methods We searched peer-reviewed literature for data on HBsAg and anti-HCV-Ab prevalence and cost-effectiveness of screening of the general population and five subgroups, and used data for people who inject drugs (PWID) and blood donors from two European organizations. Of 1759 and 468 papers found in the prevalence and cost-effectiveness searches respectively, we included 124 and 29 papers after assessing their quality. We used decision rules to calculate weighted prevalence estimates by country. Results The HBsAg and anti-HCV-Ab prevalence in the general population ranged from 0.1%-5.6% and 0.4%-5.2% respectively, by country. For PWID, men who have sex with men and migrants, the prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV-Ab was higher than the prevalence in the general population in all but 3 countries. There is evidence that HCV screening of PWID and HBsAg screening of pregnant women and migrants is cost-effective. Conclusion The prevalence of chronic HBV and HCV infection varies widely between European countries. Anti-HCV-Ab screening of PWID and HBsAg screening of pregnant women and migrants have European public health priority. Cost-effectiveness analyses may need to take effect of antiviral treatment on preventing HBV and HCV transmission into account.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The cost-effectiveness of birth-cohort screening for hepatitis C antibody in U.S. primary care settings.

              In the United States, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is most prevalent among adults born from 1945 through 1965, and approximately 50% to 75% of infected adults are unaware of their infection. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of birth-cohort screening. Cost-effectiveness simulation. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, U.S. Census, Medicare reimbursement schedule, and published sources. Adults born from 1945 through 1965 with 1 or more visits to a primary care provider annually. Lifetime. Societal, health care. One-time antibody test of 1945-1965 birth cohort. Numbers of cases that were identified and treated and that achieved a sustained viral response; liver disease and death from HCV; medical and productivity costs; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Compared with the status quo, birth-cohort screening identified 808,580 additional cases of chronic HCV infection at a screening cost of $2874 per case identified. Assuming that birth-cohort screening was followed by pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PEG-IFN+R) for treated patients, screening increased QALYs by 348,800 and costs by $5.5 billion, for an ICER of $15,700 per QALY gained. Assuming that birth-cohort screening was followed by direct-acting antiviral plus PEG-IFN+R treatment for treated patients, screening increased QALYs by 532,200 and costs by $19.0 billion, for an ICER of $35,700 per QALY saved. The ICER of birth-cohort screening was most sensitive to sustained viral response of antiviral therapy, the cost of therapy, the discount rate, and the QALY losses assigned to disease states. Empirical data on screening and direct-acting antiviral treatment in real-world clinical settings are scarce. Birth-cohort screening for HCV in primary care settings was cost-effective. Division of Viral Hepatitis, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                21 December 2015
                2015
                : 10
                : 12
                : e0145022
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
                [2 ]School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom
                [3 ]Division of Global Public Health, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, United States of America
                [4 ]School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
                [5 ]ICON Health Economics and Epidemiology, Dublin, Ireland
                [6 ]Health Protection Scotland, NHS Health Scotland, Glasgow, United Kingdom
                The Chinese University of Hong Kong, HONG KONG
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: EF declares current commercial affiliation, however this was not the case at the time the study was undertaken. NKM has received research grants from Gilead unrelated to this work and has received honoria from AbbVie. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: OW CG EF YX DG SH NKM. Performed the experiments: CG OW RH YX. Analyzed the data: CG OW RH YX. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: CG OW RH YX EF. Wrote the paper: OW CG EF YX DG SH NKM RH.

                ¶ Memberships of the Consortium and ECDC are provided in the Acknowledgments.

                Article
                PONE-D-15-44110
                10.1371/journal.pone.0145022
                4686364
                26689908
                a5edaa0e-ee11-465b-8515-8d70b00d6d82
                © 2015 Geue et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

                History
                : 9 October 2015
                : 28 November 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 2, Pages: 26
                Funding
                This work was funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (OJ/27/05/2011-PROC/2011/040). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funder provided support in the form of the above mentioned grant, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of authors are articulated in the "author contribution" section. EF is currently affiliated with a commercial company (icon plc) however at the time the study was undertaken EF was not affiliated with a commercial company, so that commercial affiliation did not play a role within the study. NKM acknowledges research funding from the National Institute for Drug Abuse R01 DA037773-01A1 and the UCSD Centre for AIDS Research. This funding does not play a role within the study.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                Data extraction tables related to the systematic review are provided as supplementary material.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article