Study supports routine rapid HCV testing for at-risk youth

Routine finger-stick testing for hepatitis C virus infection is the best screening strategy for 15- to 30-year-olds, provided that at least 6 in every 1,000 have injected drugs, according to the results of a modeling study.

“Currently, nearly all hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission in the United States occurs among young persons who inject drugs,” wrote Sabrina A. Assoumou, MD, of Boston Medical Center and Boston University and her associates. “We show that routine testing provides the most clinical benefit and best value for money in an urban community health setting where HCV prevalence is high.”

Rapid routine testing consistently yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a lower cost than did the current practice of reflexive, risk-based venipuncture testing, the researchers said. They recommended that urban health centers either replace venipuncture diagnostics with routine finger-stick testing or that they ensure follow-up RNA testing when needed so they can link HCV-positive patients to treatment (Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Sep 9. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix798).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended risk-based HCV testing, but studies indicate that primary care providers often miss the chance to test and have trouble identifying high-risk patients, Dr. Assoumou and her associates said. The standard HCV test is a blood draw for antibody testing followed by confirmatory RNA testing, but a two-step process complicates follow-up.

To compare one-time HCV screening strategies in high-risk settings, the researchers created a decision analytic model using TreeAge Pro 2014 software and input data on prevalence, mortality, treatment costs, and efficacy from an extensive literature review.

Compared with targeted risk-based HCV testing, routine rapid testing performed by dedicated counselors yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year unless the prevalence of injection drug use was less than 0.59%, the prevalence of HCV infection among injection drug users was less than 16%, the reinfection rate exceeded 26 cases per 100 person-years, or all venipuncture antibody tests were followed by confirmatory testing. Routine rapid testing identified 20% of HCV infections in the model, which is four times the rate under current practice. Rates of sustained virologic response were 18% with routine rapid testing and 2% with standard practice.

Routine rapid testing did not dramatically boost QALYs at a population level, the researchers acknowledged, but diagnosing and treating an injection drug user increased life span by an average of 2 years and saved $214,000 per patient in additional costs.

“Rapid testing always provided greater life expectancy than venipuncture testing at either a lower lifetime medical cost or a lower cost/QALY gained,” the investigators concluded. “Future studies are needed to define the programmatic effectiveness of HCV treatment among youth, and testing and treatment acceptability in this population.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

Routine finger-stick testing for hepatitis C virus infection is the best screening strategy for 15- to 30-year-olds, provided that at least 6 in every 1,000 have injected drugs, according to the results of a modeling study.

“Currently, nearly all hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission in the United States occurs among young persons who inject drugs,” wrote Sabrina A. Assoumou, MD, of Boston Medical Center and Boston University and her associates. “We show that routine testing provides the most clinical benefit and best value for money in an urban community health setting where HCV prevalence is high.”

Rapid routine testing consistently yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a lower cost than did the current practice of reflexive, risk-based venipuncture testing, the researchers said. They recommended that urban health centers either replace venipuncture diagnostics with routine finger-stick testing or that they ensure follow-up RNA testing when needed so they can link HCV-positive patients to treatment (Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Sep 9. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix798).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended risk-based HCV testing, but studies indicate that primary care providers often miss the chance to test and have trouble identifying high-risk patients, Dr. Assoumou and her associates said. The standard HCV test is a blood draw for antibody testing followed by confirmatory RNA testing, but a two-step process complicates follow-up.

To compare one-time HCV screening strategies in high-risk settings, the researchers created a decision analytic model using TreeAge Pro 2014 software and input data on prevalence, mortality, treatment costs, and efficacy from an extensive literature review.

Compared with targeted risk-based HCV testing, routine rapid testing performed by dedicated counselors yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year unless the prevalence of injection drug use was less than 0.59%, the prevalence of HCV infection among injection drug users was less than 16%, the reinfection rate exceeded 26 cases per 100 person-years, or all venipuncture antibody tests were followed by confirmatory testing. Routine rapid testing identified 20% of HCV infections in the model, which is four times the rate under current practice. Rates of sustained virologic response were 18% with routine rapid testing and 2% with standard practice.

Routine rapid testing did not dramatically boost QALYs at a population level, the researchers acknowledged, but diagnosing and treating an injection drug user increased life span by an average of 2 years and saved $214,000 per patient in additional costs.

“Rapid testing always provided greater life expectancy than venipuncture testing at either a lower lifetime medical cost or a lower cost/QALY gained,” the investigators concluded. “Future studies are needed to define the programmatic effectiveness of HCV treatment among youth, and testing and treatment acceptability in this population.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

Routine finger-stick testing for hepatitis C virus infection is the best screening strategy for 15- to 30-year-olds, provided that at least 6 in every 1,000 have injected drugs, according to the results of a modeling study.

“Currently, nearly all hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission in the United States occurs among young persons who inject drugs,” wrote Sabrina A. Assoumou, MD, of Boston Medical Center and Boston University and her associates. “We show that routine testing provides the most clinical benefit and best value for money in an urban community health setting where HCV prevalence is high.”

Rapid routine testing consistently yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a lower cost than did the current practice of reflexive, risk-based venipuncture testing, the researchers said. They recommended that urban health centers either replace venipuncture diagnostics with routine finger-stick testing or that they ensure follow-up RNA testing when needed so they can link HCV-positive patients to treatment (Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Sep 9. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix798).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended risk-based HCV testing, but studies indicate that primary care providers often miss the chance to test and have trouble identifying high-risk patients, Dr. Assoumou and her associates said. The standard HCV test is a blood draw for antibody testing followed by confirmatory RNA testing, but a two-step process complicates follow-up.

To compare one-time HCV screening strategies in high-risk settings, the researchers created a decision analytic model using TreeAge Pro 2014 software and input data on prevalence, mortality, treatment costs, and efficacy from an extensive literature review.

Compared with targeted risk-based HCV testing, routine rapid testing performed by dedicated counselors yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year unless the prevalence of injection drug use was less than 0.59%, the prevalence of HCV infection among injection drug users was less than 16%, the reinfection rate exceeded 26 cases per 100 person-years, or all venipuncture antibody tests were followed by confirmatory testing. Routine rapid testing identified 20% of HCV infections in the model, which is four times the rate under current practice. Rates of sustained virologic response were 18% with routine rapid testing and 2% with standard practice.

Routine rapid testing did not dramatically boost QALYs at a population level, the researchers acknowledged, but diagnosing and treating an injection drug user increased life span by an average of 2 years and saved $214,000 per patient in additional costs.

“Rapid testing always provided greater life expectancy than venipuncture testing at either a lower lifetime medical cost or a lower cost/QALY gained,” the investigators concluded. “Future studies are needed to define the programmatic effectiveness of HCV treatment among youth, and testing and treatment acceptability in this population.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.