Universal testing for hepatitis B and hepatitis C in the emergency department: a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of two urban hospitals in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have shown the effectiveness of testing for hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV) in emergency departments (ED), due to the elevated prevalence amongst attendees. The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of universal opt-out HBV and HCV testing in EDs based on 2 long-term studies of the real-world effectiveness of testing in 2 large ED's in the UK. METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate ED-based HBV and HCV testing versus no ED testing, in addition to current testing practice. The two EDs had a HBV HBsAg prevalence of 0.5-0.9% and an HCV RNA prevalence of 0.9-1.0%. The analysis was performed from a UK health service perspective, over a lifetime time horizon. Costs are reported in British pounds (GBP), and outcomes as quality adjusted life years (QALYs), with both discounted at 3.5% per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) are calculated as costs per QALY gained. A willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY was used. The cost-effectiveness was estimated for both infections, in both ED's. RESULTS: HBV and HCV testing were highly cost-effective in both settings, with ICERs ranging from £7,177 to £12,387 per QALY gained. In probabilistic analyses, HBV testing was 89-94% likely to be cost-effective at the threshold, while HCV testing was 94-100% likely to be cost-effective, across both settings. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, testing remained cost-effective in both locations at ≥ 0.25% HBsAg prevalence, and ≥ 0.49% HCV RNA prevalence. This is much lower than the prevalence observed in the two EDs included in this study. CONCLUSIONS: HBV and HCV testing in urban EDs is highly cost-effective in the UK, and can be cost-effective at relatively low prevalence. These results should be reflected in UK and European hepatitis testing guidelines.

Optimizing diagnostic algorithms to advance Hepatitis C elimination in Italy: A cost effectiveness evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Optimized diagnostic algorithms to detect active infections are crucial to achieving HCV elimination. We evaluated the cost effectiveness and sustainability of different algorithms for HCV active infection diagnosis, in a context of a high endemic country for HCV infection. METHODS: A Markov disease progression model, simulating six diagnostic algorithms in the birth cohort 1969-1989 over a 10-year horizon from a healthcare perspective was used. Conventionally diagnosis of active HCV infection is through detection of antibodies (HCV-Ab) detection followed by HCV-RNA or HCV core antigen (HCV-Ag) confirmatory testing either on a second sample or by same sample reflex testing. The undiagnosed and unconfirmed rates were evaluated by assays false negative estimates and each algorithm patients' drop-off. Age, liver disease stages distribution, liver disease stage costs, treatment effectiveness and costs were used to evaluate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). RESULTS: The reference option was Rapid HCV-Ab followed by second sample HCV-Ag testing which produced the lowest QALYs (866,835 QALYs). The highest gains in health (QALYs=974,458) was obtained by HCV-RNA reflex testing which produced a high cost-effective ICER (€891/QALY). Reflex testing (same sample-single visit) vs two patients' visits algorithms, yielded the highest QALYs and high cost-effective ICERs (€566 and €635/QALY for HCV-Ag and HCV-RNA, respectively), confirmed in 99.9% of the 5,000 probabilistic simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm, by a cost effectiveness point of view, the EASL and WHO clinical practice guidelines recommending HCV reflex testing as most cost effective diagnostic option vs other diagnostic pathways.

An Economic Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Opt-Out Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Testing in an Emergency Department Setting in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of hepatitis is high in emergency department (ED) attendees in the United Kingdom, with a prevalence of up to 2% for hepatitis B (HBV) HBsAg, and 2.9% for hepatitis C (HCV) RNA. The aim of this paper is to perform an economic evaluation of opt-out ED-based HCV and HBV testing. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of opt-out HCV and HBV testing in EDs in the UK. The model used data from UK studies of ED testing to parameterize the HCV and HBV prevalence (1.4% HCV RNA, 0.84% HBsAg), test costs, and intervention effects (contact rates and linkage to care). For HCV, we used an antibody test cost of £3.64 and RNA test cost of £68.38, and assumed direct-acting antiviral treatment costs of £10 000. For HBV, we used a combined HBsAg and confirmatory test cost of £5.79. We also modeled the minimum prevalence of HCV (RNA-positive) and HBV (HBsAg) required to make ED testing cost-effective at a £20 000 willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. RESULTS: In the base case, ED testing was highly cost-effective, with HCV and HBV testing costing £8019 and £9858 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. HCV and HBV ED testing remained cost-effective at 0.25% HCV RNA or HBsAg prevalence or higher. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency department testing for HCV and HBV is highly likely to be cost-effective in many areas across the UK depending on their prevalence. Ongoing studies will help evaluate ED testing across different regions to inform testing guidelines.