Back

Proactive case-finding and risk-stratification in people at risk of chronic liver disease in Greater Manchester: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Rogers, G.; Landi, S.; Purssell, H.; Momoh, T.; Yates, S.; Street, O.; Piper Hanley, K.; Hanley, N.; Athwal, V.; Payne, K.

2025-06-02 health economics
10.1101/2025.06.01.25328671 medRxiv
Show abstract

ABSTRACTO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSWe urgently need innovative strategies to combat a growing epidemic of chronic liver disease (CLD). ID-LIVER was a collaborative project aiming to improve detection of reversible-stage CLD in a region with high prevalence of critical risk factors. ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of ways to identify people with significant CLD, including proactive case-finding in the community (supplementing reactive referrals from primary care) and/or risk-stratification (using FIB-4 or ID-LIVER-ML -- a novel machine-learning risk-stratification tool). DesignState-transition decision-analytic model estimating lifetime healthcare costs (2023/24 GBP) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with six alternative strategies for case-finding and risk-stratification. We simulated cohorts of people with alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). We populated the model with data collected in ID-LIVER, supplemented by parameters from literature and routine data-sources. We estimated incremental cost-effectiveness and performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. ResultsAny case-identification strategy costing [≤]3,300 GBP per person with significant CLD identified would meet English cost-effectiveness thresholds (20,000 GBP/QALY). In our decision-set, the cheapest strategy is to use FIB-4 in the reactive-only population. ID-LIVER-ML generates more population health at reasonable cost (10,490 GBP/QALY gained). Introducing proactive case-finding generates further health benefits, costing 12,952 GBP/QALY gained. Using ID-LIVER-ML in the proactive-and-reactive population has the highest probability of maximising cost-effectiveness, when valuing QALYs at 20,000 GBP. ConclusionSmart methods of case-finding and risk-stratification identify people with significant CLD in the community, and are likely to represent good value for money in England.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.5%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.8%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 23%
7.5%
50% of probability mass above
4
Hepatology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.5%
5
The Lancet Healthy Longevity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.9%
6
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
7
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
8
Hepatology Communications
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
9
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.2%
10
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
11
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.2%
12
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.0%
13
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
14
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
15
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
16
Gastroenterology
40 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
17
Gut
36 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
18
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
19
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
22
Addiction
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
23
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
24
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
25
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 77%
0.7%
26
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
27
Molecular Metabolism
105 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
29
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
30
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%