Systematic review evaluates cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies for liver disease in high-income countries, indicating strong benefits.
Viral hepatitis, including hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), significantly contributes to the global burden of liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma. This systematic review evaluates the cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for viral hepatitis-related liver disease and liver cancer in high-income countries. We systematically searched electronic databases (January 2013 to June 2024) for economic evaluations of HBV/HCV prevention strategies. Quality assessment used Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines. Analysis included model structures, assumptions, outcome measures, and cost-effectiveness findings. Twenty-one economic evaluations were included (13 USA, 8 Europe/ Canada). Most used Markov models with time horizons ranging from five years to lifetime. Universal screening was cost-effective across different populations, with Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) ranging from $11,378-$28,000 per Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) for universal HCV screening. Early HCV treatment (F0-F2) was cost-effective compared to delayed treatment. Universal HBV vaccination showed substantial economic benefits. Most interventions were cost-effective according to country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds, though treatment costs remained a significant barrier to implementation. Primary prevention strategies for viral hepatitis-related liver disease are generally cost-effective, particularly in high-risk populations. Universal screening and early treatment were associated with improved health outcomes, including reductions in hepatocellular carcinoma, cirrhosis, and liver-related mortality. However, significant variations in methodological approaches limit direct comparability across studies and across countries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lewandowska et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: