Cost-effectiveness of direct anti-viral agents for hepatitis C virus infection and a combined intervention of syringe access and medication assisted therapy for opioid use disorders in an injection drug use population.

Clicks: 415
ID: 4604
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #69 of 532 articles by views in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 532 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
There are too many plausible permutations and scale-up scenarios of combination hepatitis C (HCV) interventions for exhaustive testing in experimental trials. Therefore, we used computer simulation to project the health and economic impact of alternative combination intervention scenarios for people who inject drugs (PWID), focusing on direct anti-viral agents (DAA) and medication-assisted treatment combined with syringe access programs (MAT+).We performed an allocative efficiency study using a mathematical model simulating the progression of HCV in PWID and its related consequences. Two previously validated simulations were combined to estimate the cost-effectiveness of intervention strategies that included a range of coverage levels. Analyses were performed from a health sector and societal perspective with a 15-year time horizon and a discount rate of 3%.From a health-sector perspective (excluding criminal justice system-related costs), four potential strategies fell on the cost-efficiency frontier. DAA at 20% coverage had an ICER of $27,251/QALY. Combinations of DAA 20% with MAT+ at 20%, 40%, and 80% coverage had ICERs of $165,985/QALY, $325,860/QALY, and $399,189/QALY, respectively. When analyzed from a societal perspective (including criminal justice system-related costs), DAA 20% with MAT+ 80% was most effective and was cost saving. While DAA 20% with MAT+ 80% was more expensive (e.g., less cost-saving) than MAT+ 80% alone without DAA, it offered favorable value compared to MAT+ 80% alone ($23,932/QALY).When considering health sector costs alone, DAA alone was the most cost-effective intervention. However, with criminal justice system-related costs, DAA and MAT+ implemented together become the most cost-effective interventions.
Reference Key
stevens2019costeffectivenessclinical Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Stevens, Elizabeth R;Nucifora, Kimberly A;Hagan, Holly;Jordan, Ashly E;Uyei, Jennifer;Khan, Bilal;Dombrowski, Kirk;des Jarlais, Don;Braithwaite, R Scott;
Journal Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
Year 2019
DOI
ciz726
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.