Cost-effectiveness of Hepatitis C virus self-testing in four settings

Josephine G. Walker,Elena Ivanova,Muhammad S. Jamil,Jason J. Ong,Philippa Easterbrook,Emmanuel Fajardo,Cheryl Case Johnson,Niklas Luhmann,Fern Terris-Prestholt,Peter Vickerman,Sonjelle Shilton
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0001667
2023-04-06
PLOS Global Public Health
Abstract:Globally, there are approximately 58 million people with chronic hepatitis C virus infection (HCV) but only 20% have been diagnosed. HCV self-testing (HCVST) could reach those who have never been tested and increase uptake of HCV testing services. We compared cost per HCV viraemic diagnosis or cure for HCVST versus facility-based HCV testing services. We used a decision analysis model with a one-year time horizon to examine the key drivers of economic cost per diagnosis or cure following the introduction of HCVST in China (men who have sex with men), Georgia (men 40–49 years), Viet Nam (people who inject drugs, PWID), and Kenya (PWID). HCV antibody (HCVAb) prevalence ranged from 1%-60% across settings. Model parameters in each setting were informed by HCV testing and treatment programmes, HIV self-testing programmes, and expert opinion. In the base case, we assume a reactive HCVST is followed by a facility-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and then nucleic acid testing (NAT). We assumed oral-fluid HCVST costs of 0.87- 35 2019 US dollars (Viet Nam) to 104 in Viet Nam, 587 in Kenya, and 2.25/test), increasing uptake of HCVST and linkage to facility-based care and NAT testing, or proceeding directly to NAT testing following HCVST, reduced the cost per diagnosis. The baseline incremental cost per cure was lowest in Georgia ( 2,033), and Kenya ( 4,956). HCVST increased the number of people tested, diagnosed, and cured, but at higher cost. Introducing HCVST is more cost-effective in populations with high prevalence.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?