ABSTRACT
Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening is traditionally performed using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and HCV infection is confirmed by measuring the viral load using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). An alternative screening approach is to use only PCR, without the ELISA pretest. Methods: We compared the cost ratio of screening for HCV using 2 approaches: (1) ELISA followed by PCR testing, and (2) PCR testing alone. The results were analyzed using a decision analysis model. A sensitivity analysis and a threshold analysis were performed by varying both the prevalence of HCV infection (to encompass populations in which viral infection is overrepresented) as well as the costs of PCR testing. Results: Under baseline assumptions, the costs of PCR testing alone were substantially greater than the combination of ELISA and PCR testing. The cost per patient screened using combination testing was $42.30, whereas testing with only PCR cost $200.00 per patient. The prevalence of HCV had a greater impact on the cost ratio than did the costs of laboratory tests. The use of PCR testing alone became less costly only when the prevalence of HCV infection was greater than 69.5%. Otherwise, the costs of the 2 approaches were similar when the cost of PCR was 1% of that of ELISA. Conclusion: From a pharmacoeconomic basis, the current approach of HCV screening (ie, using ELISA and PCR testing) was found to be the less expensive screening strategy in a general US population and for most cohorts in which HCV infection was noted to be overrepresented. Screening for HCV is less costly using solely PCR testing only when the prevalence of HCV infection is greater than 69.5%.
