Cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic hepatitis B and C among migrant populations in a low endemic country.

BACKGROUND: Chronic infection with hepatitis B or C virus (HBV/HCV) can progress to cirrhosis, liver cancer, and even death. In a low endemic country as the Netherlands, migrants are a key risk group and could benefit from early diagnosis and antiviral treatment. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening foreign-born migrants for chronic HBV and/or HCV using a societal perspective. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a Markov model. Estimates on prevalence, screening programme costs, participation and treatment uptake, transition probabilities, healthcare costs, productivity losses and utilities were derived from the literature. The cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained was estimated and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: For most migrant groups with an expected high number of chronically infected cases in the Netherlands combined screening is cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from €4,962/QALY gained for migrants originating from the Former Soviet Union and Vietnam to €9,375/QALY gained for Polish migrants. HBV and HCV screening proved to be cost-effective for migrants from countries with chronic HBV or HCV prevalence of ≥0.41% and ≥0.22%, with ICERs below the Dutch cost-effectiveness reference value of €20,000/QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that treatment costs influenced the ICER for both infections. CONCLUSIONS: For most migrant populations in a low-endemic country offering combined HBV and HCV screening is cost-effective. Implementation of targeted HBV and HCV screening programmes to increase early diagnosis and treatment is important to reduce the burden of chronic hepatitis B and C among migrants.

Language support for linguistic minority chronic hepatitis B/C patients: an exploratory study of availability and clinicians' perceptions of language barriers in six European countries.

BACKGROUND: Language support for linguistic minorities can improve patient safety, clinical outcomes and the quality of health care. Most chronic hepatitis B/C infections in Europe are detected among people born in endemic countries mostly in Africa, Asia and Central/Eastern Europe, groups that may experience language barriers when accessing health care services in their host countries. We investigated availability of interpreters and translated materials for linguistic minority hepatitis B/C patients. We also investigated clinicians' agreement that language barriers are explanations of three scenarios: the low screening uptake of hepatitis B/C screening, the lack of screening in primary care, and why cases do not reach specialist care. METHODS: An online survey was developed, translated and sent to experts in five health care services involved in screening or treating viral hepatitis in six European countries: Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK). The five areas of health care were: general practice/family medicine, antenatal care, health care for asylum seekers, sexual health and specialist secondary care. We measured availability using a three-point ordinal scale ('very common', 'variable or not routine' and 'rarely or never'). We measured agreement using a five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: We received 238 responses (23% response rate, N = 1026) from representatives in each health care field in each country. Interpreters are common in the UK, the Netherlands and Spain but variable or rare in Germany, Hungary and Italy. Translated materials are rarely/never available in Hungary, Italy and Spain but commonly or variably available in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. Differing levels of agreement that language barriers explain the three scenarios are seen across the countries. Professionals in countries with most infrequent availability (Hungary and Italy) disagree strongest that language barriers are explanations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show pronounced differences between countries in availability of interpreters, differences that mirror socio-cultural value systems of 'difference-sensitive' and 'difference-blindness'. Improved language support is needed given the complex natural history of hepatitis B/C, the recognised barriers to screening and care, and the large undiagnosed burden among (potentially) linguistic minority migrant groups.

Limited access to hepatitis B/C treatment among vulnerable risk populations: an expert survey in six European countries.

Background: To investigate access to treatment for chronic hepatitis B/C among six vulnerable patient/population groups at-risk of infection: undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, people without health insurance, people with state insurance, people who inject drugs (PWID) and people abusing alcohol. Methods: An online survey among experts in gastroenterology, hepatology and infectious diseases in 2012 in six EU countries: Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. A four-point ordinal scale measured access to treatment (no, some, significant or complete restriction). Results: From 235 recipients, 64 responses were received (27%). Differences in access between and within countries were reported for all groups except people with state insurance. Most professionals, other than in Spain and Hungary, reported no or few restrictions for PWID. Significant/complete treatment restriction was reported for all groups by the majority in Hungary and Spain, while Italian respondents reported no/few restrictions. Significant/complete restriction was reported for undocumented migrants and people without health insurance in the UK and Spain. Opinion about undocumented migrants in Germany and the Netherlands was divergent. Conclusions: Although effective chronic hepatitis B/C treatment exists, limited access among vulnerable patient populations was seen in all study countries. Discordance of opinion about restrictions within countries is seen, especially for groups for whom the health care system determines treatment access, such as undocumented migrants, asylum seekers and people without health insurance. This suggests low awareness, or lack, of entitlement guidance among clinicians. Expanding treatment access among risk groups will contribute to reducing chronic viral hepatitis-associated avoidable morbidity and mortality.

Infection with hepatitis B and C virus in Europe: a systematic review of prevalence and cost-effectiveness of screening.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is improving but not benefiting individuals unaware to be infected. To inform screening policies we assessed (1) the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and anti-hepatitis C virus antibody (anti-HCV-Ab) prevalence for 34 European countries; and (2) the cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic HBV and HCV infection. METHODS: We searched peer-reviewed literature for data on HBsAg and anti-HCV-Ab prevalence and cost-effectiveness of screening of the general population and five subgroups, and used data for people who inject drugs (PWID) and blood donors from two European organizations. Of 1759 and 468 papers found in the prevalence and cost-effectiveness searches respectively, we included 124 and 29 papers after assessing their quality. We used decision rules to calculate weighted prevalence estimates by country. RESULTS: The HBsAg and anti-HCV-Ab prevalence in the general population ranged from 0.1%-5.6% and 0.4%-5.2% respectively, by country. For PWID, men who have sex with men and migrants, the prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV-Ab was higher than the prevalence in the general population in all but 3 countries. There is evidence that HCV screening of PWID and HBsAg screening of pregnant women and migrants is cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of chronic HBV and HCV infection varies widely between European countries. Anti-HCV-Ab screening of PWID and HBsAg screening of pregnant women and migrants have European public health priority. Cost-effectiveness analyses may need to take effect of antiviral treatment on preventing HBV and HCV transmission into account.

Screening and early treatment of migrants for chronic hepatitis B virus infection is cost-effective.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Persons with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection are at risk of developing cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Early detection of chronic HBV infection through screening and treatment of eligible patients has the potential to prevent these sequelae. We assessed the cost-effectiveness in The Netherlands of systematically screening migrants from countries that have high and intermediate HBV infection levels. METHODS: Epidemiologic data of the expected numbers of patients with active chronic HBV infection in the target population and information about the costs of a screening program were used in a Markov model and used to determine costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for patients who were and were not treated. RESULTS: Compared with the status quo, a 1-time screen for HBV infection can reduce mortality of liver-related diseases by 10%. Using base case estimates, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening, compared with not screening, is euros (euro) 8966 per QALY gained. The ICER ranged from euro7936 to euro11,705 based on univariate sensitivity analysis, varying parameter values of HBV prevalence, participation rate, success in referral, and treatment compliance. Using multivariate sensitivity analysis for treatment effectiveness, the ICER ranged from euro7222 to euro15,694; for disease progression, it ranged from euro5568 to euro60,418. CONCLUSIONS: Early detection and treatment of people with HBV infection can have a large impact on liver-related health outcomes. Systematic screening for chronic HBV infection among migrants is likely to be cost-effective, even using low estimates for HBV prevalence, participation, referral, and treatment compliance.

Potential impact of long-term nucleoside therapy on the mortality and morbidity of active chronic hepatitis B.

UNLABELLED: The potential impact of long-term antiviral therapy on the burden of chronic hepatitis B has hardly been documented. The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of prolonged antiviral therapy and antiviral resistance on the mortality and morbidity of active chronic hepatitis B patients. A population cohort of chronic hepatitis B patients in the Netherlands was constructed and stratified according to 10-year age groups, prevalence of hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis B virus DNA level, alanine aminotransferase level, hepatitis B e antigen status, and presence of cirrhosis. A Markov model was created to mathematically simulate the cohort's progression through a finite series of health states. The analysis was performed on the basis of four scenarios: natural history, long-term therapy with a high-resistance profile drug without or with salvage, and therapy with a low-resistance profile drug. It has been estimated that there were 64,000 people (0.4%) suffering from chronic hepatitis B infection in the Netherlands in 2005, with 6521 (10%) of them having high viremia and elevated alanine aminotransferase levels. Within a 20-year period, 1725 (26%) of the 6521 patients in the active chronic hepatitis B cohort will die because of liver-related causes. Of the 5685 without cirrhosis at entry, 1671 (29%) will develop cirrhosis. Of those 836 with cirrhosis at entry, 619 (74%) will die within a 20-year period. If this active chronic hepatitis B cohort is fully detected and treated, mortality related to liver disease can be reduced by 80% if a low-resistance profile drug is chosen from the start. The effect is due to both the reduction in complications of cirrhosis and the prevention of the development of cirrhosis. CONCLUSION: Long-term antiviral therapy with a strategy that minimizes or controls resistance will have a major preventive effect on liver-related mortality and morbidity.

Management of Chlamydia cases and their partners: results from a home-based screening program organized by municipal public health services with referral to regular health care.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the management of Chlamydia trachomatis cases and partners found in a systematic home-based chlamydia screening project in the Netherlands among 15- to 29-year-old women and men, organized by the Municipal Public Health Services (MHS). METHODS: Infected participants (165/8339 = 2%) were referred to regular curative services. The treating physician provided feedback on treatment and partner notification. RESULTS: Including the effect of a reminder, the treatment rate of all index cases was 91% (150/165); among persons with non-Dutch ethnicity, 81% (25/31). The majority of cases (82%) consulted the general practitioner for treatment as opposed to sexually transmitted disease/MHS clinics (18%). Eighty-five percent of cases were treated within 2 weeks. The confirmed treatment rate of partners in the last 6 months was 49% (86/176); 57% (81/141) for current versus 14% (5/35) for other partners. Patient referral was advised in an additional 18% (25/141) of current partners and in 9% (3/35) of other partners (potential treatment). CONCLUSION: Home-based chlamydia screening and treatment through regular treatment facilities has proven to be effective in the Netherlands. The necessity of a reminder to increase treatment rate and the lower treatment rate in non-Dutch high-risk groups deserve attention. Low confirmed treatment rate of current partners carries the potential of reinfection, and patient-delivered treatment should be expanded.