How Does Treating Chronic Hepatitis C Affect Individuals in Need of Organ Transplants in the United Kingdom?

Another Step Toward Hepatitis C Elimination: An Economic Evaluation of an Irish National Birth Cohort Testing Program

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of offering once-off birth cohort testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) to people in Ireland born between 1965 and 1985, the cohort with the highest reported prevalence of undiagnosed chronic HCV infection.

METHODS

Systematic and opportunistic HCV birth cohort testing programs, implemented over a 4-year timeframe, were compared with the current practice of population risk-based testing only in a closed-cohort decision tree and Markov model hybrid over a lifetime time horizon. Outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were presented from the health system's perspective in 2020 euro (€). Uncertainty was assessed via deterministic, probabilistic, scenario, and threshold analyses.

RESULTS

In the base case, systematic testing yielded the largest cost and health benefits, followed by opportunistic testing and risk-based testing. Compared with risk-based testing, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for opportunistic testing was €14 586 (95% confidence interval €4185-€33 527) per QALY gained. Compared with opportunistic testing, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for systematic testing was €16 827 (95% confidence interval €5106-€38 843) per QALY gained. These findings were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Both systematic and opportunistic birth cohort testing would be considered an efficient use of resources, but systematic testing was the optimal strategy at willingness-to-pay threshold values typically used in Ireland. Although cost-effective, any decision to introduce birth cohort testing for HCV (in Ireland or elsewhere) must be balanced with considerations regarding the feasibility and budget impact of implementing a national testing program given high initial costs and resource use.

Quantifying spillover benefits in value assessment: a case study of increased graft survival on the US kidney transplant waitlist

AIM

To quantify the wider impacts of increased graft survival on the size of the kidney transplant waitlist and health and economic outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The analysis employed known steady-state solutions to a double-queueing system as well as simulations of this system. Baseline input parameters were sourced from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network and the United States Renal Data System. Three increased graft survival scenarios were modeled: decreases in repeat transplant candidates joining the waitlist of 25%, 50%, and 100%.

RESULTS

Under the three scenarios, we estimated that the US waitlist size would decrease from 91,822 to 85,461 (6.9% decrease), 80,073 (12.8% decrease), and 69,340 (24.4% decrease), respectively. Patient outcomes improved, with lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for a 1-year cohort of transplant recipients increasing by 10,010, 16,888, and 43,345 over the three scenarios. Discounted lifetime costs for the cohort in the new steady state were lower by $1.6 billion, $2.3 billion, and $9.0 billion for each scenario, respectively. Spillover impacts (i.e. benefits that accrued beyond the patients who directly experienced increased graft survival) accounted for 41-48% of the QALY gains and ranged from cost increases of 3.3% to decreases of 5.5%.

LIMITATIONS

The model is a simplification of reality and does not account for the full degree of patient heterogeneity occurring in the real world. Health economic outcomes are extrapolated based on the assumption that the median patient is representative of the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing graft survival reduces demand from repeat transplants candidates, allowing additional candidates to receive transplants. These spillover impacts decrease waitlist size and shorten wait times, leading to improvements in graft and patient survival as well as quality-of-life. Cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments that increase kidney graft survival should incorporate spillover benefits that accrue beyond the direct recipient of an intervention.