Search

Background and aims: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) and its sequelae present a significant source of economic and societal burden. Introduction of highly effective curative therapies has made HCV elimination attainable. The study used a predictive model to assess the clinical and economic impact of implementing national screening and treatment policies toward HCV elimination in Korea. Methods: A previously validated Markov disease progression model of HCV infection was employed to analyze the clinical and economic impact of various strategies for HCV diagnosis and treatment in Korea. In this analysis, the model compared the clinical and economic outcomes of current HCV-related interventions in Korea (7,000 patients treated and 4,200 patients newly diagnosed annually, starting in 2017) to four elimination scenarios: 1) initiating sufficient diagnosis and treatment interventions to meet the World Health Organization's GHSS elimination targets by 2030, 2) delaying initiation of interventions by one year, 3) delaying initiation of interventions by two years and 4) accelerating initiation of interventions to meet elimination targets by 2025. Modelled historical incidence of HCV was calibrated to match a viremic HCV prevalence of 0.44% in 2009. Elimination scenarios required 24,000 treatments and 34,000 newly diagnosed patients annually, starting in 2018, to reach the 2030 targets. Results: Compared to current "status quo" interventions, elimination (or accelerated elimination by 2025) would avert 23,700 (27,000) incident cases of HCV, 1,300 (1,400) liver-related deaths (LRDs) and 2,900 (3,100) cases of end-stage liver disease (ESLD) over the 2017–2030 time period. Postponing interventions by one (or two) years would avert 21,100 (18,600) new HCV infections, 920 (660) LRDs and 2,000 (1,400) cases of ESLD by 2030. Following elimination or accelerated elimination strategies would save 860 million USD or 1.1 billion USD by 2030, respectively, compared to the status quo, requiring an up-front investment in prevention that decreases spending on liver-related complications and death. Conclusions: By projecting the impact of interventions and tracking progress toward GHSS elimination targets using modelling, we demonstrate that Korea can prevent significant morbidity, mortality and spending on HCV. Results should serve as the backbone for policy and decision-making, demonstrating how aggressive prevention measures are designed to reduce future costs and increase the health of the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: This study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a one-time hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening and treatment program in South Korea where hepatitis B virus (HBV) prevails, in people aged 40–70, compared to current practice (no screening). Methods: A published Markov model was used in conjunction with a screening and treatment decision tree to model patient cohorts, aged 40–49, 50–59 and 60–69 years, distributed across chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and compensated cirrhosis (CC) health states (82.5% and 17.5%, respectively). Based on a published seroepidemiology study, HCV prevalence was estimated at 0.60%, 0.80% and 1.53%, respectively. An estimated 71.7% of the population was screened. Post-diagnosis, 39.4% of patients were treated with a newly available all-oral direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimen over 5 years. Published rates of sustained virologic response, disease management costs, transition rates and utilities were utilised. Results: Screening resulted in the identification of 43,635 previously undiagnosed patients across all cohorts. One-time HCV screening and treatment was estimated to be cost-effective across all cohorts; predicted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $5,714 to $8,889 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Incremental costs associated with screening, treatment and disease management ranged from $156.47 to $181.85 million USD; lifetime costs-offsets associated with the avoidance of end stage liver disease complications ranged from $51.47 to $57.48 million USD. Conclusions: One-time HCV screening and treatment in South Korean people aged 40–70 is likely to be highly cost-effective compared to the current practice of no screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We estimated the disability weights in the South Korean population by using a paired comparison-only model wherein ‘full health’ and ‘being dead’ were included as anchor points, without resorting to a cardinal method, such as person trade-off. The study was conducted via 2 types of survey: a household survey involving computer-assisted face-to-face interviews and a web-based survey (similar to that of the GBD 2010 disability weight study). With regard to the valuation methods, paired comparison, visual analogue scale (VAS), and standard gamble (SG) were used in the household survey, whereas paired comparison and population health equivalence (PHE) were used in the web-based survey. Accordingly, we described a total of 258 health states, with ‘full health’ and ‘being dead’ designated as anchor points. In the analysis, 4 models were considered: a paired comparison-only model; hybrid model between paired comparison and PHE; VAS model; and SG model. A total of 2,728 and 3,188 individuals participated in the household and web-based survey, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients of the disability weights of health states between the GBD 2010 study and the current models were 0.802 for Model 2, 0.796 for Model 1, 0.681 for Model 3, and 0.574 for Model 4 (all P-values<0.001). The discrimination of values according to health state severity was most suitable in Model 1. Based on these results, the paired comparison-only model was selected as the best model for estimating disability weights in South Korea, and for maintaining simplicity in the analysis. Thus, disability weights can be more easily estimated by using paired comparison alone, with ‘full health’ and ‘being dead’ as one of the health states. As noted in our study, we believe that additional evidence regarding the universality of disability weight can be observed by using a simplified methodology of estimating disability weights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]