IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v22y2021i1d10.1007_s10198-020-01236-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus screening, and subsequent monitoring or treatment among pregnant women in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Job F. H. Eijsink

    (Groningen Research Institute Pharmacy, University of Groningen
    University of Groningen
    University of Groningen
    Isala)

  • Mohamed N. M. T. Al Khayat

    (Groningen Research Institute Pharmacy, University of Groningen
    University of Groningen)

  • Cornelis Boersma

    (University of Groningen)

  • Peter G. J. Horst

    (Isala)

  • Jan C. Wilschut

    (University of Groningen)

  • Maarten J. Postma

    (Groningen Research Institute Pharmacy, University of Groningen
    University of Groningen
    University of Groningen)

Abstract

Background The prevalence of diagnosed chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among pregnant women in the Netherlands is 0.26%, yet many cases remain undiagnosed. HCV screening and treatment of pregnant HCV carriers could reduce the burden of disease and limit vertical transmission from mother to child. We assessed the impact of HCV screening and subsequent treatment with new direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) among pregnant women in the Netherlands. Methods An HCV natural history Markov transition state model was developed, to evaluate the public-health and economic impact of HCV screening and treatment. Besides all 179,000 pregnant women in the Netherlands (cohort 1), we modelled 3 further cohorts: all 79,000 first-time pregnant women (cohort 2), 33,000 pregnant migrant women (cohort 3) and 16,000 first-time pregnant migrant women (cohort 4). Each cohort was analyzed in various scenarios: i no intervention, i.e., the current practice, ii screen-and-treat, i.e., the most extensive approach involving treatment of all individuals found HCV-positive, and iii screen-and-treat/monitor, i.e., a strategy involving treatment of symptomatic (F1–F4) patients and follow-up of asymptomatic (F0) HCV carriers with subsequent treatment only at progression. Results For all cohorts, comparison between scenarios (ii) and (i) resulted in ICERs between €9,306 and €10,173 per QALY gained and 5 year budget impacts varying between €6,283,830 and €19,220,405. For all cohorts, comparison between scenarios (iii) and (i) resulted in ICERs between €1,739 and €2,749 per QALY gained and budget impacts varying between €1,468,670 and €5,607,556. For all cohorts, the ICERs (scenario iii versus ii) involved in delayed treatment of asymptomatic (F0) HCV carriers varied between €56,607 and €56,892, well above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €20,000 per QALY gained and even above a threshold of €50,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion Universal screening for HCV among all pregnant women in the Netherlands is cost-effective. However, it would be reasonable to consider smaller risk groups in view of the budget impact of the intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Job F. H. Eijsink & Mohamed N. M. T. Al Khayat & Cornelis Boersma & Peter G. J. Horst & Jan C. Wilschut & Maarten J. Postma, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus screening, and subsequent monitoring or treatment among pregnant women in the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(1), pages 75-88, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01236-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01236-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-020-01236-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-020-01236-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anouk T Urbanus & Marjolijn van Keep & Amy A Matser & Mark H Rozenbaum & Christine J Weegink & Anneke van den Hoek & Maria Prins & Maarten J Postma, 2013. "Is Adding HCV Screening to the Antenatal National Screening Program in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Cost-Effective?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    2. David J. McLernon & John Dillon & Peter T. Donnan, 2008. "Systematic Review: Health-State Utilities in Liver Disease: A Systematic Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(4), pages 582-592, July.
    3. McCabe, C & Claxton, K & Culyer, AJ, 2008. "The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: What it is and What that Means," MPRA Paper 26466, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Rita Faria’s journal round-up for 8th February 2021
      by Rita Faria in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-02-08 12:00:01

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Mohamed N.M.T. Al Khayat & Job F.H. Eijsink & Maarten J. Postma & Jan C. Wilschut & Marinus van Hulst, 2020. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Virus Screening Strategies among Recently Arrived Migrants in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-13, August.
    3. Ryuichi Ohta & Yoshinori Ryu & Daisuke Kataoka & Chiaki Sano, 2021. "Effectiveness and Challenges in Local Self-Governance: Multifunctional Autonomy in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-14, January.
    4. John Vernon & Robert Goldberg & Joseph Golec, 2009. "Economic Evaluation and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(10), pages 797-806, October.
    5. Scott Metcalfe & Rachel Grocott, 2010. "Comments on “Simoens, S. Health Economic Assessment: A Methodological Primer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 2950-2966”—New Zealand in Fact Has No Cost-Effectiveness Threshold," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-4, April.
    6. Marieke Krol & Jocé Papenburg & Siok Swan Tan & Werner Brouwer & Leona Hakkaart, 2016. "A noticeable difference? Productivity costs related to paid and unpaid work in economic evaluations on expensive drugs," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(4), pages 391-402, May.
    7. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    8. Sanjib Saha & Ulf-G Gerdtham & Pia Johansson, 2010. "Economic Evaluation of Lifestyle Interventions for Preventing Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-46, August.
    9. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    10. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    11. Katharina Schremser & Wolf Rogowski & Sigrid Adler-Reichel & Amanda Tufman & Rudolf Huber & Björn Stollenwerk, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness of an Individualized First-Line Treatment Strategy Offering Erlotinib Based on EGFR Mutation Testing in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients in Germany," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1215-1228, November.
    12. Klingler, Corinna & Shah, Sara M.B. & Barron, Anthony J.G. & Wright, John S.F., 2013. "Regulatory space and the contextual mediation of common functional pressures: Analyzing the factors that led to the German Efficiency Frontier approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 270-280.
    13. Shan Liu & Michaël Schwarzinger & Fabrice Carrat & Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert, 2011. "Cost Effectiveness of Fibrosis Assessment Prior to Treatment for Chronic Hepatitis C Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(12), pages 1-14, December.
    14. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & Matthew Franklin & Lieven Annemans & Nick Verhaeghe & Martin Eden & Jasdeep Hayre & Sarah Rodgers & Aziz Sheikh & Anthony Avery, 2014. "Cost Effectiveness of a Pharmacist-Led Information Technology Intervention for Reducing Rates of Clinically Important Errors in Medicines Management in General Practices (PINCER)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 573-590, June.
    15. Constanza L Vargas & Manuel A Espinoza & Andrés Giglio & Alejandro Soza, 2015. "Cost Effectiveness of Daclatasvir/Asunaprevir Versus Peginterferon/Ribavirin and Protease Inhibitors for the Treatment of Hepatitis c Genotype 1b Naïve Patients in Chile," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    16. Stefano Capri & Rosella Levaggi, 2011. "Shifting the risk in pricing and reimbursement schemes? A model of risk-sharing agreements for innovative drugs," DEP - series of economic working papers 2/2011, University of Genoa, Research Doctorate in Public Economics.
    17. Mehdi Javanbakht & Jesse Fishman & Eoin Moloney & Peter Rydqvist & Amir Ansaripour, 2023. "Early Cost-Effectiveness and Price Threshold Analyses of Resmetirom: An Investigational Treatment for Management of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 93-110, January.
    18. Nadine Schur & Salvatore Brugaletta & Angel Cequier & Andrés Iñiguez & Antonio Serra & Pilar Jiménez-Quevedo & Vicente Mainar & Gianluca Campo & Maurizio Tespili & Peter den Heijer & Armando Bethencou, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, August.
    19. Anne Girault & Chloe Gerves-Pinquie & Serena Phillips & Sarah Raskin & Mandi Pratt-Chapman, 2018. "Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review," Post-Print hal-01973691, HAL.
    20. Chloé Gervès-Pinquié & Anne Girault & Serena Phillips & Sarah Raskin & Mandi Pratt-Chapman, 2018. "Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Hepatitis C virus; Pregnant women; HCV screening; Direct-acting antivirals;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C00 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - General
    • C02 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Mathematical Economics
    • C3 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables
    • C30 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - General
    • C31 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions; Social Interaction Models
    • I00 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - General - - - General
    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
    • H00 - Public Economics - - General - - - General
    • H61 - Public Economics - - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt - - - Budget; Budget Systems

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01236-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.