AIMS: To examine the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment of people who inject drugs (PWID), combined with medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and syringe-service programs (SSP), to tackle the increasing HCV epidemic in the United States. DESIGN: HCV transmission and disease progression models with cost-effectiveness analysis using a health-care perspective. SETTING: Rural Perry County, KY (PC) and urban San Francisco, CA (SF), USA. Compared with PC, SF has a greater proportion of PWID with access to MAT or SSP. HCV treatment of PWID is negligible in both settings. PARTICIPANTS: PWID data were collected between 1998 and 2015 from Social Networks Among Appalachian People, U Find Out, Urban Health Study and National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System studies. INTERVENTIONS AND COMPARATOR: Three intervention scenarios modeled: baseline-existing SSP and MAT coverage with HCV screening and treatment with direct-acting antiviral for ex-injectors only as per standard of care; intervention 1-scale-up of SSP and MAT without changes to treatment; and intervention 2-scale-up as intervention 1 combined with HCV screening and treatment for current PWID. MEASUREMENTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and uncertainty using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Benefits were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). FINDINGS: For both settings, intervention 2 is preferred to intervention 1 and the appropriate comparator for intervention 2 is the baseline scenario. Relative to baseline, for PC intervention 2 averts 1852 more HCV infections, increases QALYS by 3095, costs $21.6 million more and has an ICER of $6975/QALY. For SF, intervention 2 averts 36 473 more HCV infections, increases QALYs by 7893, costs $872 million more and has an ICER of $11 044/QALY. The cost-effectiveness of intervention 2 was robust to several sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatitis C screening and treatment for people who inject drugs, combined with medication-assisted treatment and syringe-service programs, is a cost-effective strategy for reducing hepatitis C burden in the United States.
AIMS: To examine the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment of people who inject drugs (PWID), combined with medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and syringe-service programs (SSP), to tackle the increasing HCV epidemic in the United States. DESIGN:HCV transmission and disease progression models with cost-effectiveness analysis using a health-care perspective. SETTING: Rural Perry County, KY (PC) and urban San Francisco, CA (SF), USA. Compared with PC, SF has a greater proportion of PWID with access to MAT or SSP. HCV treatment of PWID is negligible in both settings. PARTICIPANTS: PWID data were collected between 1998 and 2015 from Social Networks Among Appalachian People, U Find Out, Urban Health Study and National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System studies. INTERVENTIONS AND COMPARATOR: Three intervention scenarios modeled: baseline-existing SSP and MAT coverage with HCV screening and treatment with direct-acting antiviral for ex-injectors only as per standard of care; intervention 1-scale-up of SSP and MAT without changes to treatment; and intervention 2-scale-up as intervention 1 combined with HCV screening and treatment for current PWID. MEASUREMENTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and uncertainty using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Benefits were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). FINDINGS: For both settings, intervention 2 is preferred to intervention 1 and the appropriate comparator for intervention 2 is the baseline scenario. Relative to baseline, for PC intervention 2 averts 1852 more HCV infections, increases QALYS by 3095, costs $21.6 million more and has an ICER of $6975/QALY. For SF, intervention 2 averts 36 473 more HCV infections, increases QALYs by 7893, costs $872 million more and has an ICER of $11 044/QALY. The cost-effectiveness of intervention 2 was robust to several sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS:Hepatitis C screening and treatment for people who inject drugs, combined with medication-assisted treatment and syringe-service programs, is a cost-effective strategy for reducing hepatitis C burden in the United States.
Authors: Carlos Blanco; Mir M Ali; Aaron Beswick; Karen Drexler; Cheri Hoffman; Christopher M Jones; Tisha R A Wiley; Allan Coukell Journal: NAM Perspect Date: 2020-10-26
Authors: Magdalena Cerdá; Mohammad S Jalali; Ava D Hamilton; Catherine DiGennaro; Ayaz Hyder; Julian Santaella-Tenorio; Navdep Kaur; Christina Wang; Katherine M Keyes Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Jiafeng Li; Julia L Casey; Zoë R Greenwald; Abdool S Yasseen Iii; Melisa Dickie; Jordan J Feld; Curtis L Cooper; Angela M Crawley Journal: Can Liver J Date: 2021-02-24
Authors: Kathryn E Lancaster; Hannah L F Cooper; Christopher R Browning; Carlos D Malvestutto; John F P Bridges; April M Young Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Jennifer R Havens; Takako Schaninger; Hannah Fraser; Michelle Lofwall; Michele Staton; April M Young; Ardis Hoven; Sharon L Walsh; Peter Vickerman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Umedjon Ibragimov; Katherine E Cooper; Evan Batty; April M Ballard; Monica Fadanelli; Skylar B Gross; Emma M Klein; Scott Lockard; April M Young; Hannah L F Cooper Journal: Harm Reduct J Date: 2021-06-30
Authors: Eric W Hall; Sarah Schillie; Adam S Vaughan; Jeb Jones; Heather Bradley; Ben Lopman; Eli S Rosenberg; Patrick S Sullivan Journal: Hepatology Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 17.425