Cited by 80Hepatitis B Virus StudiesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHepatitis C virus research

The cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic hepatitis B infection in the United States

Open access
Eckman, Mark H., Kaiser, Tiffany E., Sherman, Kenneth E.·2011·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

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%. CONCLUSIONS: 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 claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cid/cir199

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hepatitis B screening in an office setting costs $46 per patient.

    “screening for hepatitis B in an office setting is $46 per patient (Eckman, Kaiser, & Sherman, 2011).”

    From Monetary conversion factors for economic evaluations of substance use disorders (2017) · cites this paper as Eckman, Kaiser, & Sherman, 2011

    The Costs section says screening costs were modeled, but the available Table 2 text does not give a readable per-patient screening price. Searches for “$46,” “office setting,” and screening cost per patient found no passage establishing the claimed amount; the totals in Table 3 include treatment and do not settle it. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [58]58. Welch S, Chiang B, Shadday P, Brosgart CL. Estimated prevalence of chronic hepatitis B in foreign-born persons living in the United States by country/region of origin. Hepatology 2008; 48:687A-8A.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eckman, M. H., Kaiser, T. E., & Sherman, K. E.
Affiliations
University of Cincinnati (US)
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2011-06-01
Volume
52
Issue
11
Pages
1294-1306
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W4242609773
Cited by
80
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Gilead Sciences
  • Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
  • Savient Pharmaceuticals
  • Astellas Pharma
  • National Institutes of Health (5ul1rr026314-03, UL1TR000077)
  • Genentech
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K30 HL078581-01)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK075599, DK075599, K24DK070528)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM009533)
  • National Center for Research Resources (1UL1RR026314, UL1-RR026314)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Hepatitis B Virus Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Hepatitis C virus research
Keywords
chronic hepatitis B, hepatitis B virus, screening thresholds, cost-effectiveness, hepatitis B surface antigen, peginterferon alfa-2a, nucleoside analogues, antiviral resistance, quality-adjusted life years, HBV prevalence, screening guidelines
MeSH terms
Adult, Antiviral Agents, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Hepatitis B Surface Antigens, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, United States, Models, Statistical, Prevalence, Hepatitis B, Chronic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review