Table 2.

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a range of HIV/HCV NAT costs and population prevalence values

Cost of NAT, $ (for each test)	HIV		HCV		HIV/HCV combined
	Prevalence (%)	ICER1 ($)	Prevalence (%)	ICER1 ($)	ICER2 ($)
150	1.53	161 013	18.23	Dominant	86 653
	1.0	318 344	12.9	Dominant	188 727
	0.5	790 336	5.6	Dominant	497 589
	0.21	2 093 933	3.5	3290	1 337 023
	0.10	4 566 272	1.5	46 631	2 943 124
300	1.5	470 989	18.2	Dominant	287 814
	1.0	785 650	12.9	Dominant	491 963
	0.5	1 729 634	5.6	10 301	1 109 687
	0.21	4 336 828	3.5	34 680	2 788 553
	0.10	9 281 506	1.5	121 363	6 000 756
500	1.5	884 289	18.2	Dominant	556 029
	1.0	1 408 725	12.9	Dominant	896 277
	0.5	2 982 031	5.6	35 901	1 925 817
	0.21	7 327 354	3.5	76 534	4 723 927
	0.103	15 568 484	1.53	221 006	10 077 599

“Dominant” = resulted in improved outcomes at reduced costs. HCV, hepatitis C virus; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; NAT, nucleic acid-amplification testing.

¹The ICER is the ratio of the (difference in costs)/(difference in quality-adjusted life years) with the implementation of NAT plus antibody testing versus antibody testing alone of solid organ transplant donors.

²The range of ICERs for the combined HIV/HCV NAT is reported for testing at 2× the cost quoted in Column 1 (i.e. $300, $600 and $1000).

³The “favorable” scenario is low costs and high prevalence. The “unfavorable” scenario is high costs and low prevalence. All other scenarios are intermediate.