Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for Persistent Hepatitis E Virus Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Patients in the United Kingdom: A Model-Based Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Despite potentially severe and fatal outcomes, recent studies of solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients in Europe suggest that hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is underdiagnosed, with a prevalence of active infection of up to 4.4%. OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of introducing routine screening for HEV infection in SOT recipients in the UK. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility of 4 HEV screening options over the lifetime of 1000 SOT recipients. The current baseline of nonsystematic testing was compared with annual screening of all patients by polymerase chain reaction (PCR; strategy A) or HEV-antigen (HEV-Ag) detection (strategy B) and selective screening of patients who have a raised alanine aminotransferase (ALT) value by PCR (strategy C) or HEV-Ag (strategy D). The primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We adopted the National Health Service (NHS) perspective and discounted future costs and benefits at 3.5%. RESULTS: At a willingness-to-pay of £20 000/QALY gained, systematic screening of SOT patients by any method (strategy A-D) had a high probability (77.9%) of being cost-effective. Among screening strategies, strategy D is optimal and expected to be cost-saving to the NHS; if only PCR testing strategies are considered, then strategy C becomes cost-effective (£660/QALY). These findings were robust against a wide range of sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our model showed that routine screening for HEV in SOT patients is very likely to be cost-effective in the UK, particularly in patients presenting with an abnormal alanine aminotransferase.

Toward Systematic Screening for Persistent Hepatitis E Virus Infections in Transplant Patients.

BACKGROUND: Persistent hepatitis E virus genotype 3 (HEV G3) infections affect solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients, but the burden in these cohorts in the United Kingdom is unknown. We established an audit to determine the point prevalence of HEV viremia in SOT and HSCT patients in the United Kingdom and compare different testing approaches to inform screening strategies. METHODS: Between January 5, 2016, and September 21, 2016, 3044 patients undergoing therapeutic drug monitoring at a single transplant center were screened for HEV ribonucleic acid (RNA) in minipools. A total of 2822 patients who could be characterized included 2419 SOT patients, 144 HSCT patients and 259 patients with no available transplant history. HEV RNA-positive samples were characterized by serology and genomic phylogeny. HEV antigen (HEV-Ag) testing was performed on RNA-positive samples, 420 RNA-negative samples and 176 RNA-negative blood donor samples. RESULTS: Nineteen of 2822 patients were viremic with G3 HEV giving a prevalence of 0.67%. The median alanine aminotransferase was significantly higher in the HEV viremic patients (P < 0.0001); however, 2 viremic patients had an alanine aminotransferase value within the normal range at the time of screening. The HEV-Ag assay identified 18/19 viremic patients and all those patients with proven viremia longer than 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Transplant recipients in the United Kingdom are at a low but significant risk of HEV infection. HEV-Ag detection could be an alternative to RNA detection where the goal is to identify established persistent HEV infection, particularly where expertise, facilities, or cost prohibit RNA testing.