Design and cost effectiveness of a hepatitis C virus elimination strategy based on an updated epidemiological study (ETHON cohort)

Seroprevalence and epidemiology of hepatitis B and C viruses in pregnant women in Spain. Risk factors for vertical transmission

“…In Spain, the prevalence of antibodies is 1.7% and that of viraemia (HCV RNA positive) is 1.2% [6]. In the Ethon Cohort [7], the prevalence of anti-HCV positive (anti-HCV+ve) was 1.23% and only 0.32% had viraemia. However, this prevalence might be affected by changes in patterns of migration in Europe, especially in Spain [8].…”

Is the universal population Hepatitis C virus screening a cost-effective strategy? A systematic review of the economic evidence

“…Some studies were discarded based on the tittle and abstract and 58 publications were fully reviewed. A total of 16 studies were ultimately identified and selected based on the inclusion/ exclusion criteria [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] (figure 1). Most of them were high-quality papers and abstracts according to the CHEERS´s 24-item review checklist (table 1).…”

“…The population studied was mainly general population (10 studies). At table 2 there has been summarized the study groups and the comparators [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Although population profiles are important to understand the results, also the country of origin, the local prevalence and willingness-to-pay are key evaluation that contained incremental cost-effectiveness/utility ratio (ICER, ICUR) in terms of cost per life year gained or quality-adjusted life year (QALY).…”

“…Discrete-time Markov model (+/decision tree) were used in all of them to modelled HCV progression and transmission and to analyse the costs and benefits of investment in screening and treatment. Every European and Asian studies used the third-party payor perspective, most of them including a 3% discount rate for costs and outcomes [ 10 - 13 , 15 , 16 , 20 , 22 , 23 ]. Some USA studies used a societal perspective including but not limited to direct costs [ 7 - 9 ].…”

“…Cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is highly favourable at most of the comparations, being screening plus DDAs treatment a cost-effective strategy not only for prisoners, inmates who left the prison and PWID, but also cost-effective for selected birth cohort populations and general population. Most of the model results are considered to be below the willingness-to-pay threshold [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Studies considered some populations at different regions.…”