Hepatitis C Management at Federally Qualified Health Centers during the Opioid Epidemic: A Cost-Effectiveness Study

Test characteristics for combining non-invasive liver fibrosis staging modalities in individuals with Hepatitis C virus

Non-invasive methods have largely replaced biopsy to identify advanced fibrosis in hepatitis C virus (HCV). Guidelines vary regarding testing strategy to balance accuracy, costs and loss to follow-up. Although individual test characteristics are well-described, data comparing the accuracy of using two tests together are limited. We calculated combined test characteristics to determine the utility of combined strategies. This study synthesizes empirical data from fibrosis staging trials and the literature to estimate test characteristics for Fibrosis-4 (FIB4), APRI or a commercial serum panel (FibroSure®), followed by transient elastography (TE) or FibroSure®. We simulated two testing strategies: (1) second test only for those with intermediate first test results (staged approach), and (2) second test for all. We summarized empiric data with multinomial distributions and used this to estimate test characteristics of each strategy on a simulated population of 10,000 individuals with 4.2% cirrhosis prevalence. Negative predictive value (NPV) for cirrhosis from a single test ranged from 98.2% (95% CB 97.6-98.8%) for FIB-4 to 99.4% (95% CB 99.0-99.8%) for TE. Using a staged approach with TE second, sensitivity for cirrhosis rose to 93.3-96.9%, NPV to 99.7-99.8%, while PPV dropped to <32%. Using TE as a second test for all minimally changed estimated test characteristics compared with the staged approach. Combining two non-invasive fibrosis tests barely improves NPV and decreases or does not change PPV compared with a single test, challenging the utility of serial testing modalities. These calculated combined test characteristics can inform best methods to identify advanced fibrosis in various populations.

Optimizing point-of-care testing strategies for diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in Australia: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Timely 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.

Methods

Cost-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.

Findings

The 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.

Interpretation

Point-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.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council.

A Microsimulation Study of the Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Virus Screening Frequencies in Hemodialysis Centers

BACKGROUND

National guidelines recommend twice-yearly hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening for patients receiving in-center hemodialysis. However, studies examining the cost-effectiveness of HCV screening methods or frequencies are lacking.

METHODS

We populated an HCV screening, treatment, and disease microsimulation model with a cohort representative of the US in-center hemodialysis population. Clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2018 guidelines-endorsed HCV screening frequency (every 6 months) were compared with less frequent periodic screening (yearly, every 2 years), screening only at hemodialysis initiation, and no screening. We estimated expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) between each screening strategy and the next less expensive alternative strategy, from a health care sector perspective, in 2019 US dollars. For each strategy, we modeled an HCV outbreak occurring in 1% of centers. In sensitivity analyses, we varied mortality, linkage to HCV cure, screening method (ribonucleic acid versus antibody testing), test sensitivity, HCV infection rates, and outbreak frequencies.

RESULTS

Screening only at hemodialysis initiation yielded HCV cure rates of 79%, with an ICER of $82,739 per QALY saved compared with no testing. Compared with screening at hemodialysis entry only, screening every 2 years increased cure rates to 88% and decreased liver-related deaths by 52%, with an ICER of $140,193. Screening every 6 months had an ICER of $934,757; in sensitivity analyses using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained, screening every 6 months was never cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The KDIGO-recommended HCV screening interval (every 6 months) does not seem to be a cost-effective use of health care resources, suggesting that re-evaluation of less-frequent screening strategies should be considered.

Economic Impact of Universal Hepatitis C Virus Testing for Middle-Aged Adults Who Inject Drugs

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to estimate the economic impact of providing universal hepatitis C virus testing in commercially insured middle-aged persons who inject drugs in the U.S.

METHODS

This study developed a dynamic 10-year economic model to project the clinical and economic outcomes associated with hepatitis C virus testing among middle-aged adult persons who inject drugs, from a payer's perspective. Costs related to hepatitis C virus testing, direct-acting antiviral, and liver-related outcomes between the (1) current hepatitis C virus testing rate (i.e., 8%) and (2) universal hepatitis C virus testing rate (i.e., 100%) were compared. Among patients testing positive, 21% of those without cirrhosis and 48% of those with cirrhosis were assumed to initiate direct-acting antivirals. Sensitivity analyses were performed to identify variables (e.g., direct-acting antiviral drug costs, hepatitis C virus testing costs, direct-acting antiviral treatment rate) influencing this study's conclusion.

RESULTS

The model predicts that during the 10-year period, universal hepatitis C virus testing will cost an additional $242 per person who injects drugs to the payers' healthcare budgets compared with the current scenario. Sensitivity analyses showed values ranging from $1,656 additional costs to $1,085 cost savings across all varied parameters and scenarios. A total of 80% of the current direct-acting antiviral costs indicated that cost savings will be $383 per person who injects drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal hepatitis C virus testing among persons who inject drugs would not achieve cost savings within 10 years, with the cost of direct-acting antivirals contributing the most to the spending. To promote universal hepatitis C virus testing among persons who inject drugs, decreasing direct-acting antiviral costs and sustainable funding streams for hepatitis C virus testing should be considered.