Discussion
This study evaluated the effectiveness, cost and cost-effectiveness of different HCV screening and treatment of pregnant women and their infants in Egypt. First, current practice, that is, STargeted-TDeferred-T12, was the most expensive in terms of mother–infant pair combined HCV-related lifetime costs and the less effective in terms of mother–infant pair combined LE. Second, SUniversal-TUniversal-T3 is a cost-saving strategy compared with current practice and to all alternative strategies, leading to the lowest mother–infant pair combined HCV-related lifetime costs and highest mother–infant pair combined LE. Finally, combining universal screening and treatment of women during pregnancy with a hypothetical prophylactic treatment of all HCV exposed infants at birth may be cost saving compared with current strategy. These findings were consistent when considering plausible variation range of all parameters in sensitivity analyses, even for the prophylactic scenario where uncertainties about cost, effectiveness and duration of prophylactic treatment are greater.
Our modelled results are largely based on estimates obtained in our previously published study.19 This pregnancy-specific study (short-term analysis) showed that universal screening and treatment of all pregnant women with HCV during their pregnancy would result in the largest number of women being diagnosed during pregnancy and cured by delivery, with a 50% decrease in the proportion of infants infected compared with current practice.19 Our long-term analysis showed that in addition to the short-term clinical benefit for mothers and their children, SUniversal-TUniversal-T3 is the most effective strategy over the long term and is even cost saving. This is true not only for the mother–infant pair combined outcome but also the separate maternal and paediatric outcomes. It is important to emphasise that the estimated costs and LE are an average of all pregnant women and their children, that is, those with and without HCV, explaining that the variations are small from one strategy to another. However, if we look more specifically at the HCV RNA-positive maternal and paediatric populations that will benefit from the strategies, SUniversal-TUniversal-T3 would decrease maternal and paediatric lifetime costs by 38% and 24%, respectively, increase LE by 7.8% and 0.2%, respectively, and decreased DALYs by 30% and 42%, respectively, compared with current practice (online supplemental table S9). The small increase of LE for children between strategies is explained because of the small proportion of children remaining HCV RNA-positive, due to spontaneous HCV clearance during the first 5 years and the high proportion of treated children at 12 years for all strategies, thanks to the national elimination campaign. On the contrary, the gain in cost for children is substantial, −5% in the study population and −24% in the HCV RNA-positive population, SUniversal-TUniversal-T3 avoiding costs related to HCV health condition thanks to early HCV cure.
We also confirm in this work that STargeted-TDeferred-T12 is the least effective, as highly targeted screening of HCV resulted in the highest proportion of women with HCV remaining undiagnosed at delivery (0.78%) in comparison with the WHO targeted approach and universal screening (0.22%–0.16%). Subsequently, the proportion of infants infected with HCV was highest with current practice compared with the other strategies (0.116% vs 0.094%–0.06%); among infants infected with HCV, the proportion of those born to undiagnosed mothers—and therefore not targeted by postnatal screening—is also the highest (59% vs 15%–24%). One of the new results of this study is to show that the current practice strategy is also the most expensive. This is based on two elements: the availability of low costs of HCV tests and generic treatments in a short-time frame, while the costs of managing HCV disease are high, especially when complications such as DC and HCC occur. Varying these costs by ±20% in sensitivity analysis, did not change our conclusions.
Moreover, if infant-appropriate DAA formulations become available, safe and with a similar cost to DAAs for children aged 3 years, the exploratory scenario of prophylactic treatment at birth of all infants born to mothers diagnosed as HCV RNA-positive combined with screening and treatment of the mother during pregnancy would be the least expensive and most effective strategy. Taking into account HCV spontaneous clearance up to the age of 5 years, one downside is the probability of overtreatment to those not infected or likely to clear. However, high rates of loss of follow-up when delaying HCV RNA testing infants at the WHO-recommended 18 months of age have been reported in previous studies24 as a factor to support early treatment after birth for infants. Moreover, there is evidence that in patients without HCV infection who received a heart or lung transplant from donors with hepatitis C viraemia, pre-emptive treatment with DAAs, initiated within a few hours after transplantation, prevented the development of HCV infection.41 These findings support the idea that early DAAs after potential vertical transmission could prevent it.42
We have previously demonstrated the importance of pregnancy as a unique opportunity to test and treat women at childbearing age when they are engaged with healthcare providers notably for surveillance even if Egypt is announced as the country that eliminated HCV.19 In this work, we also demonstrated that postpartum period, thanks to the paediatric vaccination schedule during first years after delivery, is an opportunity to treat not only infants early after birth or at the age of 3 years but also their mothers after delivery and breastfeeding cessation. Nevertheless, the linkage to HCV programmes and Maternal and Child Health centre clinics remains essential for better follow-up and uptake of the treatment.
Our results are in line with previous studies in some high-income countries showing the cost-effectiveness of universal antenatal screening for HCV.13 14 Although universal hepatitis C screening is already recommended in the USA,43 this study is one of the first to assess the cost-effectiveness of different HCV screening and treatment strategies considering both the prenatal and postpartum periods. Apart from hepatitis C, Ciaranello et al projected clinical impact, costs and cost-effectiveness of WHO-recommended treatment strategies for prevention of mother to child HIV transmission in Zimbabwe.44 They demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of a strategy in which all HIV-infected pregnant women and their infected children would initiate lifelong antiretroviral treatment, regardless of CD4 count.
Future areas of research include a budgetary impact analysis of adding HCV screening and treatment to existing antenatal and postnatal care policies across different settings. More broadly, it would be important to assess the budgetary impact of incorporating HCV to the WHO’s recommendation for triple elimination of HIV, HBV and syphilis through screening and treatment in pregnancy.45
This study has some limitations. First, we used a mathematical model relying on input data from multiple sources. In the absence of real data, our baseline analysis was based on assumptions for HCV screening and treatment uptake, in particular for infants. However, varying these assumptions in sensitivity analysis does not change our conclusions. Second, we considered the same rates of fibrosis progression in children as in adults. Indeed, there are few data available in the paediatric population, and those available may be overestimated due to the estimation method. These estimates are obtained from the transitions and the time elapsed between fibrosis stages. However, in children, this time is necessarily shorter, leading to much higher rates of fibrosis than in adults.26 Consequently, we made the choice to apply the rates of fibrosis progression estimated in the general population to the paediatric population after ensuring that our conclusions did not vary (not shown). This assumption of a slower progression is conservative since it favours late screening and treatment strategies. Third, in the absence of utility scores associated with quality of life among HCV-infected children and no recent data in adults in the Egyptian setting,37 we did not perform cost per QALY analyses. As an alternative, we used DALYs, which is the preferred measure of health in resource-limited settings.46 Indeed, while there is no database providing QALYs for all diseases and for each country, the GBD Disability Burden Survey provides a common data source for assessing the value of different health conditions.40 Thus, we supplemented the cost-effectiveness analysis based on LE with a cost–utility analysis based on DALYs. The results of the two analyses lead to the same conclusion. This has also been the choice in the case of cost-effectiveness of strategies for prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission.44 Fourth, our modelling was unable to quantify reinfection rate in adult women and the percentage of intrafamily transmission of HCV. Fifth, our results relied on the costs of DAAs from recent published studies that may have decreased given the dynamics of elimination in progress in Egypt. However, the SUniversal-TUniversal-T3 would be all the more cost saving. Similarly, with dramatic decreasing numbers of patients, companies may change producing medications to adapt to market demand. However, we also evaluated our strategies considering DAA combination of SOF/DAC also for children, and our conclusion remained unchanged (online supplemental table S10). Finally, this work was based on Egyptian data—as much as possible—and on the Egyptian health system but can be adapted to other countries with a high HCV prevalence.
In conclusion, the universal screening and treatment during pregnancy strategy was shown to be cost-effective as compared with current practice, based on the assumption that it is safe to use during pregnancy. More data on this are urgently needed to ensure pregnant women and their children are not left behind the national elimination goals.