One-time Hepatitis C Virus Screening Research Articles

CDC's New Hepatitis C Virus Testing Recommendations for Perinatally Exposed Infants and Children: A Step Towards Hepatitis C Elimination.

New U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing of perinatally exposed infants and children released in 2023 recommend a nucleic acid test (NAT) for detection of HCV ribonucleic acid (i.e., NAT for HCV RNA) at 2-6 months of age to facilitate early identification and linkage to care for children with perinatally acquired HCV infection. Untreated hepatitis C can lead to cirrhosis, liver cancer, and premature death and is caused by HCV, a blood-borne virus transmitted most often among adults through injection drug use in the United States. Perinatal exposure from a birth parent with HCV infection is the most frequent mode of HCV transmission among infants and children. New HCV infections have been increasing since 2010, with the highest rates of infection among people aged 20-39 years, leading to an increasing prevalence of HCV infection during pregnancy. In 2020, the CDC recommended one-time HCV screening for all adults aged 18 years and older and for all pregnant persons during each pregnancy. Detecting HCV infection during pregnancy is key for the identification of pregnant persons, linkage to care for postpartum treatment, and identification of infants with perinatal exposure for HCV testing. It was previously recommended that children who were exposed to HCV during pregnancy receive an antibody to HCV (anti-HCV) test at 18 months of age; however, most children were lost to follow-up before testing occurred, leaving children with perinatal infection undiagnosed. The new strategy of testing perinatally exposed children at age 2-6 months was found to be cost-effective in increasing the identification of infants who might develop chronic hepatitis C. This report describes the current perinatal HCV testing recommendations and how they advance national hepatitis C elimination efforts by improving the health of pregnant and postpartum people and their children.

Universal screening for HCV infection in China: An effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis

Approximately 10 million people live with chronic HCV infection in China, and less than 20% of people with HCV were diagnosed. We aim to determine the cost-effectiveness of one-time HCV screening compared with no screening in the Chinese population from the healthcare system perspective. A decision-tree plus Markov model was adopted to project chronic hepatitis C (CHC) prevalence, probability of complications, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs in the Chinese general population undiagnosed for CHC for different screening strategies. Once CHC was diagnosed, pan-genotypic direct-acting antiviral agent treatment was administered regardless of fibrosis. The population was simulated in a model spanning a lifetime. Input parameters were obtained from published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between screening and no screening was estimated. The one-time Chinese gross domestic product per capita in 2021 ($12,558/QALY) was used as the willingness-to-pay threshold. Universal screening in the population aged 3-80 years led to the lowest probability of complications, which yielded a 62% reduction of excess mortality. Compared with no screening, implementing screening and treatment for HCV in populations aged 3-80 years resulted in the greatest marginal QALYs (15.2 per 1,000 population) with an increase in total costs of $109,136. Calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio yields a value of $9,503/QALY (95% uncertainty interval $3,738-$22,566). The robustness of the model was demonstrated through various sensitivity analyses. If the CHC prevalence was over 0.3%, screening could be cost-effective. HCV screening for Chinese people aged 3-80 years may be a cost-effective intervention to reduce the disease burden related to HCV infection. This strategy should certainly be implemented. This study found that screening Chinese people aged 3-80 years yielded the greatest health benefits and was a cost-effective alternative. The findings indicated that national efforts eliminating HCV should be invested and strengthened in China. The results of this study are important because they provide strong evidence that universal screening can be a cost-effective way to reduce the burden of HCV in China. These findings are important for policymakers, physicians, patients, caregivers, and the public because they promote awareness and inform decision-making for HCV prevention and treatment.

A province-by-province cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis of one-time birth cohort screening of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in Canada

Managing chronic hepatitis C is challenging, as the majority of those infected are asymptomatic. Therefore, to ensure treatments are administered before the onset of severe complications, screening is important. In Canada, uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of screening has led to conflicting recommendations. The objective of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness and budget-impact of one-time HCV screening. A state-transition model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget-impact between a risk-based screening strategy (current-practice) and a one-time screening strategy on three different birth-cohorts. Cost and prevalence data were obtained from administrative data. Progression and utility data were based on recent systematic reviews. We used a provincial payer-perspective, life-time time-horizon and a 1.5% discount rate for the cost-effectiveness analysis, and used a 10-year time-horizon and no discounting for the budget-impact analysis. One-time screening strategy would cost more and provide more health benefits than the risk-based screening for all birth cohorts. For those born after 1964, the incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) of screening versus current-practice varied from $27,422/QALY to $42,191/QALY across different provinces. One-time screening of the cohort would cost an additional $2 million to $236 million across different provinces. For those born 1945–1964, the ICER of screening versus current-practice varied from $35,217/QALY to $48,197/QALY across different provinces. For the cohort born before 1945, the ICER of screening versus current-practice was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY across all provinces. Our cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that a one-time HCV screening program for those born after 1945 is cost-effective. Considering the budget impact relative to other funded recommended health services and technologies, HCV screening could be considered affordable.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of hepatitis C virus (HCV) point-of-care assay for HCV screening.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) continues to pose significant public health concerns with approximately 44% of chronically infected Canadians undiagnosed. The current HCV screening in Canada is a two-step diagnosis pathway consisting of anti-HCV testing and HCV ribonucleic acid (RNA) testing. The introduction of HCV point-of-care assays, such as the Xpert HCV viral load finger-stick assay, can facilitate HCV RNA diagnosis during a single visit and provide quick linkage to care. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HCV point-of-care testing compared with current HCV screening strategies for injection drug users (IDUs) from a Canadian provincial Ministry of Health perspective. A state-transition model based on published literature was developed to compare HCV point-of-care assay with the standard-of-care blood screening for a one-time HCV screening and treatment program. It adopted a lifetime time horizon and included health states related to treatment, fibrosis stages, and advanced liver disease clinical states. Outcomes were expressed in costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model. HCV point-of-care assay generated an additional 0.035 QALYs/person at a cost reduction of $21.15 compared with the standard-of-care screening. The results were the most sensitive to the specificity of HCV point-of-care assay. The implementation of HCV point-of-care screening in Canada is likely to be cost-saving for IDUs. Early detection and treatment of undiagnosed individuals can prolong people's life span and save healthcare costs associated with HCV-related complications.

There\u2019s just not enough time: a mixed methods pilot study of hepatitis C virus screening among baby boomers in primary care

BackgroundLiver cancer rates are rising and hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the primary cause. The CDC recommends a one-time HCV screening for all persons born 1945–1965 (baby boomers). However, 14% of baby boomers have been screened. Few studies have examined primary care providers’ (PCP) perspectives on barriers to HCV screening. This study examines current HCV screening practices, knowledge, barriers, and facilitators to HCV screening recommendation for baby boomers among PCPs.MethodsWe conducted a mixed methods pilot study of PCPs. Quantitative: We surveyed PCPs from 3 large academic health systems assessing screening practices, knowledge (range:0–9), self-efficacy to identify and treat HCV (range:0–32), and barriers (range:0–10). Qualitative: We conducted interviews assessing patient, provider, and clinic-level barriers to HCV screening for baby boomers in primary care. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with content analysis.ResultsThe study sample consisted of 31 PCPs (22 survey participants and nine interview participants). All PCPs were aware of the birth cohort screening recommendation and survey participants reported high HCV testing recommendation, but qualitative interviews indicated other priorities may supersede recommending HCV testing. Provider knowledge of viral transmission was high, but lower for infection prevalence. While survey participants reported very few barriers to HCV screening in primary care, interview participants provided a more nuanced description of barriers such as lack of time.ConclusionsThere is a need for provider education on both HCV treatment as well as how to effectively recommend HCV screening for their patients. As HCV screening guidelines continue to expand to a larger segment of the primary care population, it is important to understand ways to improve HCV screening in primary care.

Cost-Effectiveness of One-Time Birth Cohort Screening for Hepatitis C as Part of the National Health Service Health Check Program in England

Background and ObjectivesBirth cohort screening for the hepatitis C virus (HCV) has been implemented in the US, but there is little evidence of its cost-effectiveness in England. We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of one-time HCV screening for individuals born between 1950 and 1979 as part of the National Health Service health check in England, a health check for adults aged 40 to 74 years in primary care. MethodsA Markov model was developed to analyze add-on HCV testing to the National Health Service health check for individuals in birth cohorts between 1950 and 1979, versus current background HCV testing only, over a lifetime horizon. The model used data from a back-calculation model of the burden of HCV in England, sentinel surveillance of HCV testing, and published literature. Results are presented from a health service perspective in pounds in 2017, as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life years gained. ResultsThe base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from £7648 to £24 434, and £18 681 to £46 024, across birth cohorts when considering 2 sources of HCV transition probabilities. The intervention is most likely to be cost-effective for those born in the 1970s, and potentially cost-effective for those born from 1955 to 1969. The model results were most sensitive to the source of HCV transition probabilities, the probability of referral and receiving treatment, and the HCV prevalence among testers. The maximum value of future research across all birth cohorts was £11.3 million at £20 000 per quality-adjusted life years gained. ConclusionBirth cohort screening is likely to be cost-effective for younger birth cohorts, although considerable uncertainty exists for other birth cohorts. Further studies are warranted to reduce uncertainty in cost-effectiveness and consider the acceptability of the intervention.

Hepatitis C virus screening trends: A 2016 update of the National Health Interview Survey

Background50% of liver cancer is caused by hepatitis C virus (HCV). Baby boomers are at increased risk and are recommended for one-time HCV screening. However, <13% of baby boomers were screened in 2015. Materials and methodsWe are updating a previous study using 2013–2015 NHIS data to examine HCV screening prevalence by birth cohort, with 2016 data. We used logistic regression to evaluate whether HCV screening prevalence changed over time, stratified by birth cohort. Results and discussionThe sample consisted of 132,742 participants from 2013–2016. Screening increased in baby boomers from 11.9 to 14.1%. Odds of HCV screening for baby boomers was significantly associated with age, gender, race/ethnicity, and other variables and increased significantly with each subsequent year (aOR = 1.21, aOR = 1.33, aOR = 1.42, consecutively). While HCV screening is increasing over time, there is still room for improvement and future interventions should focus on increasing HCV screening among groups demonstrating significantly lower screening prevalence.

Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of One-Time Screening and Treatment for Hepatitis C in Korea.

Background and AimsThis study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a one-time hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening and treatment program in South Korea where hepatitis B virus (HBV) prevails, in people aged 40–70, compared to current practice (no screening).MethodsA published Markov model was used in conjunction with a screening and treatment decision tree to model patient cohorts, aged 40–49, 50–59 and 60–69 years, distributed across chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and compensated cirrhosis (CC) health states (82.5% and 17.5%, respectively). Based on a published seroepidemiology study, HCV prevalence was estimated at 0.60%, 0.80% and 1.53%, respectively. An estimated 71.7% of the population was screened. Post-diagnosis, 39.4% of patients were treated with a newly available all-oral direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimen over 5 years. Published rates of sustained virologic response, disease management costs, transition rates and utilities were utilised.ResultsScreening resulted in the identification of 43,635 previously undiagnosed patients across all cohorts. One-time HCV screening and treatment was estimated to be cost-effective across all cohorts; predicted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $5,714 to $8,889 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Incremental costs associated with screening, treatment and disease management ranged from $156.47 to $181.85 million USD; lifetime costs-offsets associated with the avoidance of end stage liver disease complications ranged from $51.47 to $57.48 million USD.ConclusionsOne-time HCV screening and treatment in South Korean people aged 40–70 is likely to be highly cost-effective compared to the current practice of no screening.

Therapeutic Advances in HCV Genotype 1 Infection: Insights from the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the most common blood-borne infection in the United States. The high morbidity and mortality due to untreated infection have prompted updated screening recommendations that now include one-time HCV screening for all patients born between 1945 and 1965, in addition to risk factor-based screening. Current guidelines recommend treatment for all patients with chronic HCV. Treatment for HCV genotype 1 has evolved dramatically since the approval of the direct-acting antivirals. The approval of ledipasvir-sofosbuvir, ombitasvir-paritaprevir-ritonavir and dasabuvir, and simeprevir with sofosbuvir has dramatically altered the treatment landscape. High sustained virologic response (SVR) rates favor treatment, yet access to care poses a challenge for patients and providers. Current and emerging data with new therapies indicate high SVR rates in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients, including patients with cirrhosis and in other special populations. Additional data suggest the addition of ribavirin can decrease treatment duration without compromising SVR rates. Resistance is an increasing area of interest in HCV, with baseline mutations identified and the potential for the development of resistance-associate variants in patients undergoing treatment. Due to the rapid evolution of HCV treatment, pharmacists should address challenges and play an integral role in agent selection, dosing, drug interaction screening, adverse effect monitoring, and the coordination of treatment. Clinical application of the latest information will reduce patient risk and improve outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of screening for hepatitis C in Canada.

The seroprevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among Canadians is estimated at 0.3% to 0.9%. Of those with chronic HCV infection, 10% to 20% will experience advanced liver disease by 30 years of infection. Targeted screening seems a plausible strategy. We aimed to estimate the health and economic effects of various screening and treatment strategies for chronic HCV infection in Canada. We used a state-transition model to examine the cost-effectiveness of 4 screening strategies: no screening; screen and treat with pegylated interferon plus ribavarin; screen and treat with pegylated interferon and ribavarin-based direct-acting antiviral agents; and screen and treat with interferon-free direct-acting antivirals. We considered Canadian residents in 2 age groups: 25-64 and 45-64 years of age. We obtained model data from the literature. We predicted deaths related to chronic HCV infection, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We found that screening and treating would prevent at least 9 HCV-related deaths per 10,000 persons screened over the lifetime of the cohort. Screening was associated with QALY increases of 0.0032 to 0.0095 and cost increases of $124 to $338 per person, which translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $34,359 to $44,034 per QALY gained, relative to no screening, depending on age group screened and antiviral therapy received. A selective one-time HCV screening program for people 25-64 or 45-64 years of age in Canada would likely be cost-effective. Identification of silent cases of chronic HCV infection and the offer of treatment when appropriate could extend the lives of Canadians at reasonable cost.

Drug therapy for chronic hepatitis C: An update

Affecting more than 3 million Americans, the hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the most common blood-borne pathogen producing a chronic infection within our country today.1,2 Since 1994, the prevalence of chronic HCV infections has been decreasing.3 However, as our chronically infected population ages, signifi cant increases in morbidity, mortality, and health care costs will persist for many years to come. 3

Cost-effectiveness and population outcomes of general population screening for hepatitis C.

Current US guidelines recommend limiting hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening to high-risk individuals, and 50%-75% of infected persons remain unaware of their status. To estimate the cost-effectiveness and population-level impact of adding one-time HCV screening of US population aged 20-69 years to current guidelines, we developed a decision analytic model for the screening intervention and Markov model with annual transitions to estimate natural history. Subanalyses included protease inhibitor therapy and screening those at highest risk of infection (birth year 1945-1965). We relied on published literature and took a lifetime, societal perspective. Compared to current guidelines, incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained (ICER) was $7900 for general population screening and $4200 for screening by birth year, which dominated general population screening if cost, clinician uptake, and median age of diagnoses were assumed equivalent. General population screening remained cost-effective in all one-way sensitivity analyses, 30 000 Monte Carlo simulations, and scenarios in which background mortality was doubled, all genotype 1 patients were treated with protease inhibitors, and most parameters were set unfavorable to increased screening. ICER was lowest if screening was applied to a population with liver fibrosis similar to 2010 estimates. Approximately 1% of liver-related deaths would be averted per 15% of the general population screened; the impact would be greater with improved referral, treatment uptake, and cure. Broader screening for HCV would likely be cost-effective, but significantly reducing HCV-related morbidity and mortality would also require improved rates of referral, treatment, and cure.