Removing hepatitis C antibody testing for Australian blood donations: A cost‐effectiveness analysis

Abstract

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesThe risk of transfusion‐transmitted hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections is extremely low in Australia. This study aims to conduct a cost‐effectiveness analysis of different testing strategies for HCV infection in blood donations.Materials and MethodsThe four testing strategies evaluated in this study were universal testing with both HCV antibody (anti‐HCV) and nucleic acid testing (NAT); anti‐HCV and NAT for first‐time donations and NAT only for repeat donations; anti‐HCV and NAT for transfusible component donations and NAT only for plasma for further manufacture; and universal testing with NAT only. A decision‐analytical model was developed to assess the cost‐effectiveness of alternative HCV testing strategies. Sensitivity analysis and threshold analysis were conducted to account for data uncertainty.ResultsThe number of potential transfusion‐transmitted cases of acute hepatitis C and chronic hepatitis C was approximately zero in all four strategies. Universal testing with NAT only was the most cost‐effective strategy due to the lowest testing cost. The threshold analysis showed that for the current practice to be cost‐effective, the residual risks of other testing strategies would have to be at least 1 HCV infection in 2424 donations, which is over 60,000 times the baseline residual risk (1 in 151 million donations).ConclusionThe screening strategy for HCV in blood donations currently implemented in Australia is not cost‐effective compared with targeted testing or universal testing with NAT only. Partial or total removal of anti‐HCV testing would bring significant cost savings without compromising blood recipient safety.