Find the Missing Millions: Malaysia’s experience with nationwide hepatitis C screening campaign in the general population

Hepatitis C virus infection is a major cause of hepatocellular carcinoma worldwide. Interferon has been the major antiviral treatment, yielding viral clearance in approximately half of patients. New direct-acting antivirals substantially improved the cure rate to above 90%. However, access to therapies remains limited due to the high costs and under-diagnosis of infection in specific subpopulations, e.g., baby boomers, inmates, and injection drug users, and therefore, hepatocellular carcinoma incidence is predicted to increase in the next decades even in high-resource countries. Moreover, cancer risk persists even after 10 years of viral cure, and thus a clinical strategy for its monitoring is urgently needed. Several risk-predictive host factors, e.g., advanced liver fibrosis, older age, accompanying metabolic diseases such as diabetes, persisting hepatic inflammation, and elevated alpha-fetoprotein, as well as viral factors, e.g., core protein variants and genotype 3, have been reported. Indeed, a molecular signature in the liver has been associated with cancer risk even after viral cure. Direct-acting antivirals may affect cancer development and recurrence, which needs to be determined in further investigation. Show more

Abstract Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) affect more than 320 million people worldwide, which is more than HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria combined. Elimination of HBV and HCV will, therefore, produce substantial public health and economic benefits and, most importantly, the prevention of 1.2 million deaths per year. In 2016, member states of the World Health Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution declaring that viral hepatitis should be eliminated by 2030. Currently, few countries have elimination programmes in place and even though the tools to achieve elimination are available, the right resources, commitments and allocations are lacking. During the fifth International Viral Hepatitis Elimination Meeting (IVHEM), 7–8 December 2018, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, an expert panel of clinicians, virologists and public health specialists discussed the current status of viral hepatitis elimination programmes across multiple countries, challenges in achieving elimination and the core indicators for monitoring progress, approaches that have failed and successful elimination plans. Show more

Objectives With the developments of near-cures for hepatitis C virus (HCV), who to screen has become a high-priority policy issue in many western countries. Cost-effectiveness of screening programmes should be one consideration when developing policy. The objective of this work is to synthesise the cost-effectiveness of HCV screening programmes. Setting A systematic review was completed. 5 databases were searched until May 2016 (NHSEED, MEDLINE, the HTA Health Technology Assessment Database, EMBASE, EconLit). Participants Any study reporting an economic evaluation (any type) of screening compared with opportunistic or no screening for HCV was included. Exclusion criteria were: (1) abstracts or commentaries, (2) economic evaluations of other interventions for HCV, including blood donors screening, diagnosis tests for HCV, screening for concurrent disease or medications for treatment. Primary and secondary outcome measures Data extraction included type of model, target population, perspective, comparators, time horizon, discount rate, clinical inputs, cost inputs and outcome. Quality was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Data are summarised using narrative synthesis by population. Results 2305 abstracts were identified with 52 undergoing full-text review. 30 papers met inclusion criteria addressing 7 populations: drug users (n=6), high risk (n=5), pregnant (n=4), prison (n=3), birth cohort (n=8), general population (n=5) and other (n=6). The majority (77%) of the studies were high quality. Drug users, birth cohort and high-risk populations were associated with cost-effectiveness ratios of under £30 000 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY). The remaining populations were associated with cost-effectiveness ratios that exceeded £30 000 per QALY. Conclusions Economic evidence for screening populations is robust. If a cost per QALY of £30 000 is considered reasonable value for money, then screening birth cohorts, drug users and high-risk populations are policy options that should be considered. Show more