Streamlining the screening cascade for active Hepatitis C in Russia: A cost-effectiveness analysis

PLoS One. 2019 Jul 16;14(7):e0219687. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219687. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Objective: Screening for hepatitis C in Russia is a complex process that involves several visits and stepwise testing, limiting adherence and substantially reducing the yield in the identification of active infections. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different screening algorithms from a health system perspective.

Methods: A decision analytic model was applied to a hypothetical adult population eligible to participate in a general screening program for hepatitis C in Russia. The standard pathway (I: Screen for anti-HCV antibodies followed by a nucleic acid test for HCV RNA on antibody positives) was compared to three alternatives (II: Screen for antibodies, a reflexed test for HCV antigen on antibody positives, and RNA on antigen negatives; III: Screen for antibodies, a reflexed test for HCV antigen on antibody positives; IV: Screen for antigen). Each strategy considered a cascade of events (referral, adherence, testing, diagnosis) that must occur for screening to be effective. The primary measure of effectiveness was the number of diagnosed active infections. Calculations followed a health system perspective with costs derived from 2017 reimbursement rates and a willingness-to-pay of 2,000RUB ($82) per diagnosed active infection. Model was tested with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Non-adherence to screening stages reduced the capture rate of active infections in Strategy I from 79.0% to 40.6%. Strategies II, III, and IV were less affected and identified 69%, 67%, and 104% more infections. Average costs per diagnosed infection were decreased by 41% from 89,599RUB ($3,681) for I to 53,072RUB ($2,180), 53,004RUB ($2,177), and 59,633RUB ($2,450) for II, III, and IV, respectively. With a probability of 97%, Strategy III was most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio vs. I of -1,373RUB (CI: -5,011RUB to -2,033RUB; $-56; CI: -$206 to -$84). Below a willingness-to-pay of 91,000RUB ($3,738), Strategy IV was not cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results.

Conclusions: Testing strategies for hepatitis C with HCV antigen on HCV antibody positive cases offer a streamlining opportunity for population screening programs. Those shall increase the chances for detecting active infections and are cost-effective over current practice in Russia.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Algorithms
  • Antigens, Viral / analysis
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis*
  • Decision Making
  • Hepacivirus*
  • Hepatitis C / diagnosis*
  • Hepatitis C / economics
  • Hepatitis C / epidemiology*
  • Hepatitis C Antibodies / analysis
  • Humans
  • Mass Screening / economics
  • Mass Screening / methods*
  • Models, Statistical
  • Patient Compliance
  • Probability
  • Quality-Adjusted Life Years
  • RNA, Viral / analysis
  • Russia / epidemiology

Substances

  • Antigens, Viral
  • Hepatitis C Antibodies
  • RNA, Viral

Grants and funding

This work is based on a collaborative study between Abbott Diagnostics, Medical Affairs and the Reference Center for Viral Hepatitis at the Central Research Institute of Epidemiology in Moscow, and was funded by Abbott. The funder provided support to VC, NP, and EC for study preparation, data collection, and data validation. Nobody except the authors has any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.