Abstract
Objectives
We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of one-time HCV screening for individuals born between 1950 and 1979 as part of the NHS health check in England, a health check for adults aged 40-74 years old in primary care.
Methods
A Markov model was developed to analyse add-on HCV testing to the NHS health check for individuals in birth cohorts between 1950 and 1979, versus current background HCV testing only, over a lifetime time 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 (GBP) in 2017, as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained.
Results
Base case ICERs ranged from £7,648 to £24,434, and £18,681 to £46,024, across birth cohorts when considering two sources of HCV transition probabilities. The intervention is
most likely to be cost-effective for those born in the 1970’s, and potentially cost-effective for those born from 1955-1969. The model results were most sensitive to the source of HCV transition probabilities, the probability of referral and receiving treatment, and the HCV prevalence amongst testers. The maximum value of future research across all birth cohorts was £11.3 million at £20,000 per QALY gained.
Conclusions
Birth 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.
We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of one-time HCV screening for individuals born between 1950 and 1979 as part of the NHS health check in England, a health check for adults aged 40-74 years old in primary care.
Methods
A Markov model was developed to analyse add-on HCV testing to the NHS health check for individuals in birth cohorts between 1950 and 1979, versus current background HCV testing only, over a lifetime time 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 (GBP) in 2017, as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained.
Results
Base case ICERs ranged from £7,648 to £24,434, and £18,681 to £46,024, across birth cohorts when considering two sources of HCV transition probabilities. The intervention is
most likely to be cost-effective for those born in the 1970’s, and potentially cost-effective for those born from 1955-1969. The model results were most sensitive to the source of HCV transition probabilities, the probability of referral and receiving treatment, and the HCV prevalence amongst testers. The maximum value of future research across all birth cohorts was £11.3 million at £20,000 per QALY gained.
Conclusions
Birth 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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1248-1256 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Value in Health |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| Early online date | 19 Aug 2019 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Nov 2019 |
Research Groups and Themes
- Bristol Population Health Science Institute
Keywords
- Health services
- National Health Programs
- Mass Screening
- Hepatitis C
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Elsevier at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301519322557?via%3Dihub. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Handle.net
Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)
Accepted author manuscript, 1.76 MB