4.7 Article

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Chronic Hepatitis C Infection in the United States

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 56, 期 10, 页码 1382-1393

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cit069

关键词

hepatitis C; screening; decision analysis; cost-effectiveness analysis

资金

  1. Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Merck Sharp Dohme Corp.
  2. Merck Sharp Dohme
  3. Abbott Pharmaceuticals
  4. BMS
  5. Exalenz BioScience
  6. Gilead Pharmaceuticals
  7. GlaxoSmithKilne (GSK)
  8. Intercept Pharmaceuticals
  9. Merck
  10. Roche Pharmaceuticals
  11. Vertex Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the most common chronic blood-borne infection in the United States and will become an increasing source of morbidity and mortality with aging of the infected population. Our objective was to develop decision analytic models to explore the cost-effectiveness of screening in populations with varying prevalence of HCV and risks for fibrosis progression. Methods. We developed a Markov state transition model to examine screening of an asymptomatic community-based population in the United States. The base case was an ethnically and gender-mixed adult population with no prior knowledge of HCV status. Interventions were screening followed by guideline-based treatment, or no screening. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were measured in 2011 US dollars. Results. In the base case (US population, 49% male, 78% white, 13% African American, and 9% Hispanic, mean age, 46 years), screening followed by guideline-based treatment (using boceprevir as the direct-acting antiviral agent) of those with chronic HCV infection costs $47 276 per QALY. The overall HCV prevalence in the United States is reported to be 1.3%-1.9%, but prevalence varies markedly among patients with different numbers and types of risk factors. The marginal cost-effectiveness ratio (mCER) of screening decreases as prevalence increases. Below a prevalence of 0.84%, the mCER is greater than the generally accepted societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY and thus is not considered highly cost-effective. Conclusions. Targeted screening is cost-effective when prevalence of HCV exceeds 0.84%. Prospective evaluation of a screening tool is warranted and should include comparisons with other screening strategies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据