Pharmaco‐Economic Assessment of Screening Strategies for High‐Risk MASLD in Primary Care

Zobair M. Younossi,James M. Paik,Linda Henry,Maria Stepanova,Fatema Nader
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.16119
IF: 8.754
2024-10-08
Liver International
Abstract:Background and Aims Several scientific associations recommend a sequential combination of non‐invasive tests (NITs) to identify high‐risk MASLD patients but their cost‐effectiveness is unknown. Methods A cost‐utility model was developed to assess the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of recommended screening strategies for patients with clinically suspected MASLD, specifically those with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity with multiple cardiometabolic risk factors which will be initiated in primary care. Six screening strategies were assessed, using either vibration‐controlled transient elastography (VCTE) or the enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) test as a second‐line test following an initial Fibrosis‐4 (FIB‐4) assessment as the first line NIT. The model included treatment effects of resmetirom for metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatohepatitis (MASH) patients with F2 or F3 fibrosis. Results All screening strategies for high‐risk MASLD in US incurred additional costs compared to no screening, ranging from 14 730 per patient with T2D and 15 661 per patient with obesity. However, screening reduced long‐term costs, ranging from 22 279 per patient with T2D and 13 705 per patient with obesity, compared to 14 956 for no screening, respectively. ICERs ranged from 27 884 per QALY for T2D patients and 24 992 per QALY for patients with obesity. While ICERs were influenced by VCTE availability, they remained cost‐effective when using ELF as the second‐line test. Our findings remain robust across a range of key parameters. Conclusions Screening for high‐risk MASLD is cost‐effective according to recent guidelines. Implementing these screening strategies in primary care should be considered.
gastroenterology & hepatology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?