The cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic hepatitis B infection in the United States
Clinical Infectious Diseases, ISSN: 1058-4838, Vol: 52, Issue: 11, Page: 1294-1306
2011
- 85Citations
- 63Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations85
- Citation Indexes76
- 76
- CrossRef65
- Policy Citations9
- Policy Citation9
- Captures63
- Readers63
- 63
Article Description
(See the editorial commentary by Lo Re III, on pages 1307-1309.)Background. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality in the United States. Current guidelines suggest screening populations with a prevalence of ≥2%. Our objective was to determine whether this screening threshold is cost-effective and whether screening lower-prevalence populations might also be cost-effective. Methods .We developed a Markov state transition model to examine screening of asymptomatic outpatients in the United States. The base case was a 35-year-old man living in a region with an HBV infection prevalence of 2%. Interventions (versus no screening) included screening for Hepatitis B surface antigen followed by treatment of appropriate patients with (1) pegylated interferon-α2a for 48 weeks, (2) a low-cost nucleoside or nucleotide agent with a high rate of developing viral resistance for 48 weeks, (3) prolonged treatment with low-cost, high-resistance nucleoside or nucleotide, or (4) prolonged treatment with a high-cost nucleoside or nucleotide with a low rate of developing viral resistance. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs in 2008 US dollars. Results .Screening followed by treatment with a low-cost, high-resistance nucleoside or nucleotide was cost-effective ($29,230 per QALY). Sensitivity analyses revealed that screening costs <$50,000 per QALY in extremely low-risk populations unless the prevalence of chronic HBV infection is <.3%. Conclusion s.The 2% threshold for prevalence of chronic HBV infection in current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/US Public Health Service screening guidelines is cost-effective. Furthermore, screening of adults in the United States in lower-prevalence populations (eg, as low as. 3%) also is likely to be cost-effective, suggesting that current health policy should be reconsidered. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=79957441465&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir199; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21540206; https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/cid/cir199; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir199; https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/52/11/1294/408484?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know