Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33064259›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2021

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

Job F H Eijsink, Mohamed N M T Al Khayat, Cornelis Boersma, Peter G J Ter Horst, Jan C Wilschut, Maarten J Postma

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Implementation of HCV screening in the 1969-1989 birth-cohort undergoing COVID-19 vaccination.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Job F H EijsinkUnit of PharmacoTherapy, Epidemiology and Economics, Groningen Research Institute Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.f.h.eijsink@isala.nl.
Mohamed N M T Al KhayatUnit of PharmacoTherapy, Epidemiology and Economics, Groningen Research Institute Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Cornelis BoersmaDepartment of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Peter G J Ter HorstDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Jan C WilschutDepartment of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Maarten J PostmaUnit of PharmacoTherapy, Epidemiology and Economics, Groningen Research Institute Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Groningen · NLIsala · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsAn 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.

resultsFor 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.

conclusionUniversal 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.

Indexed as

Hepatitis C, ChronicAntiviral AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHepacivirusHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, VerticalMass ScreeningNetherlandsPregnancyPregnant PeopleQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAntiviral AgentsDirect-acting antiviralsHCV screeningHepatitis C virusPregnant women

Identifiers

PMID33064259
PMCPMC7561704
OpenAlexW3093111070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.