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.

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.