Evaluation of a new automated third-generation anti-HCV enzyme immunoassay

A cost-identification analysis of screening and surveillance of hepatitis C infection in a prospective cohort of dialysis patients

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends screening and surveillance of dialysis patients for hepatitis C virus (HCV), but there are limited data on the real life performance of confirmatory tests. We performed a cost-identification analysis of CDC recommendations using a large database of dialysis subjects. Screening and surveillance were performed according to CDC guidelines: enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing upon entry then biannual surveillance. All positive EIA tests were confirmed by either polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or radioimmunoblot assay (RIBA). A total of 12,563 patients were tested from 1997 to 2004. By EIA, the prevalence of HCV was 8.4% and annual incidence was 0.96%. The prevalence after confirmation by RIBA and PCR was 5.8% and 4.8%, respectively. The annual incidence of hepatitis C confirmed by RIBA and PCR was 0.13% and 0.084%, respectively. Using Medicare reimbursement, the cost to screen and confirm one case of hepatitis C by RIBA was $372 versus $503 by PCR. However, the cost to identify an incident infection increased to $30,594 by RIBA and $48,622 by PCR. In the sensitivity analysis, the cost of identifying incident HCV infection dropped by 50% when the surveillance interval was extended to 1 year or when seroconversion rates for EIA occurred at 2%. Due to high surveillance cost, further studies are necessary to determine optimal intervals and settings.

[Development of a Web-based Program to Calculate Sample Size for Evaluating the Performance of In Vitro Diagnostic Kits.]

BACKGROUND

Many studies evaluating the performance of in vitro diagnostic kits have been criticized for the lack of reliability. To attain reliability those evaluation studies should be preceded by sample size calculation ensuring statistical power. This study was intended to develop a web-based system to estimate the sample size, which was often neglected because it would require expert knowledge in statistics.

METHODS

For sample size calculation, we extracted essential parameters from the performance studies on the 3rd generation anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) kits reported in the literature. We developed a system with PHP web-script language and MySQL. The statistical models used in this system were as follows; one sample without power consideration (model 1), one sample with power consideration (model 2), and two samples with power consideration (model 3).

RESULTS

Among the articles published between 1989 and 2005, 13 articles that evaluated the performance of anti-HCV kits were identified by searching with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). The diagnostic sensitivity was 83-100% with a median of 145 samples (range; 12-1,091) and the specificity was 97-100% with a median of 1,025 samples (range; 33-4,381). The estimated sample size would be 280 in the model 1, 817 in the model 2, and 1,510 in the model 3, when we set 2% prevalence of HCV infection, 95% sensitivity of a conventional kit, 97% sensitivity of a new kit , 95% significance level (two-sided test), 2% allowable error, and 80% power.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that an insufficient sample size is still a problem in performance evaluation. Our system should be helpful in increasing the reliability of performance evaluation by providing an appropriate sample size.

Prevention could be less cost-effective than cure: the case of hepatitis C screening policies in France

OBJECTIVES

To access the cost-effectiveness of French recommendations for hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening and the extent to which earlier identification of carriers may or not improve the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic strategies.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis were performed using decision-tree analysis and a Markov model. Four alternative strategies were compared: no screening and no treatment; initiation of HCV treatment after the diagnosis of cirrhosis; and two alternative strategies refer to the current French policies of HCV testing, i.e., two enzyme immunoblot assay (EIA) tests in series, or a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis after the first positive EIA test. Costs were computed from the viewpoint of the health care system. The analysis has been applied to populations particularly at risk of infection, as well as the general population.

RESULTS

The "wait and treat cirrhosis" strategy was more cost-effective in the general population and in transfusion recipients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of this strategy compared with baseline strategy was 3,476 of euros and Euro15,300 in respective cohorts. Considering the HCV screening strategy, the additional cost would be of Euro4,933 and Euro240,250 per additional year of life saved, respectively. In the intravenous drug user (IDU) population, the "two ElA" screening strategy was the more cost-effective alternative, with an additional cost of Euro3,825 per additional year of life saved.

CONCLUSIONS

HCV screening would be discarded for transfusion recipients but should be encouraged for IDUs and also for the general population, in which the additional cost of screening is an order of magnitude more acceptable.

Sensitivity and specificity of third-generation hepatitis C virus antibody detection assays: an analysis of the literature

This study assessed the sensitivity and specificity of third-generation serological hepatitis C diagnostic tests from an analysis of the literature. The literature analysis was run using criteria from McMaster University for the assessment of diagnostic tests. The selected studies were grouped according to the type of population at high and low risk for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and to the type of reference test. The homogeneity of the sensitivity and the specificity was tested in each group using a Fisher's exact test. Of 132 studies, 10 were selected. When the estimates were homogeneous, summary point estimates and confidence intervals were computed; when the estimates were heterogeneous, subgroup analysis was performed. The sensitivity of third-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA3) was estimated at 98.9% (95% CI: 94-100%) in patients with chronic liver disease and at 97.2% (95% CI: 92-99%) in panels of sera. ELISA3 specificity was found at 100% in patients with chronic liver disease. The sensitivity of the third generation recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA3) was assessed at 78.8% (95% CI: 65-89%) in haemodialysed patients. This analysis provides evidence for the good sensitivity and specificity of ELISA3 assays particularly in high risk patient groups and confirms their use for screening in these populations. Further studies are needed to assess properly RIBA3 in general population and in risk patients.

Diagnostic tests for hepatitis C

Two categories of virological assays are in practice used for the diagnosis and management of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, including serological and molecular biology-based assays. Serological assays include: screening tests based on enzyme immunoassays (EIAs); supplemental "analytical" assays based on immunoblot testing; and serological assays detecting genotype-specific antibodies for the serological determination of HCV genotype, so-called "serotyping" assays. Molecular assays include: qualitative assays, detecting HCV RNA in body fluids; quantitative assays measuring HCV viral load, a parameter that estimates the level of HCV replication in the liver; and tests analyzing the sequence of HCV genomes (genotyping assays).