Cost-effectiveness of Alternative Approaches to Hepatitis C Diagnosis and Treatment Initiation for Treatment-naive People Who Inject Drugs in Australia: A Model-based Economic Evaluation.

IF 3.8 4区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2025-08-22 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1093/ofid/ofaf514
Christopher R Bailie, Nick Scott, Alisa E Pedrana, Margaret E Hellard, Joseph S Doyle
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of Alternative Approaches to Hepatitis C Diagnosis and Treatment Initiation for Treatment-naive People Who Inject Drugs in Australia: A Model-based Economic Evaluation.","authors":"Christopher R Bailie, Nick Scott, Alisa E Pedrana, Margaret E Hellard, Joseph S Doyle","doi":"10.1093/ofid/ofaf514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Eliminating hepatitis C virus requires efficient testing and treatment strategies. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of alternative hepatitis C virus diagnosis and treatment initiation approaches for treatment-naive people who inject drugs attending Australian community settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared 7 strategies differing by use of antibody screening, laboratory, and/or point-of-care tests, and point of treatment commencement. Outcomes were treatment initiation and completion. We considered costs from a healthcare sector perspective at a 1-year time horizon. We used decision analytical models parameterized with publicly available estimates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Standard of care laboratory antibody then RNA testing on separate samples was cheapest but least effective. Laboratory antibody then reflex RNA testing on 1 sample provided higher effectiveness and was the only strategy to reduce average cost per completion ($6141 2023AUD; 95% confidence interval, $3924-$10,382). Combined point-of-care antibody and RNA testing, point-of-care RNA alone, and point-of-care antibody with immediate treatment initiation in turn provided incremental improvements in completion at higher average costs per completion (point estimates: $6976-$11 707AUD). Changes in treatment uptake of at least 16 points were required to achieve equivalence between reflex laboratory and point-of-care strategies. Although treatment of nonviremic individuals contributed to higher costs of point-of-care strategies, reflex laboratory testing remained less costly per completion at generic medication costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reflex RNA testing was the most efficient strategy and can be implemented within the existing Australian laboratory framework. Point-of-care approaches may provide additional benefit at higher near-term costs. Studies accounting for transmission and disease sequelae are needed to understand cost-effectiveness in the longer term.</p>","PeriodicalId":19517,"journal":{"name":"Open Forum Infectious Diseases","volume":"12 9","pages":"ofaf514"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12448928/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Forum Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaf514","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Eliminating hepatitis C virus requires efficient testing and treatment strategies. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of alternative hepatitis C virus diagnosis and treatment initiation approaches for treatment-naive people who inject drugs attending Australian community settings.

Methods: We compared 7 strategies differing by use of antibody screening, laboratory, and/or point-of-care tests, and point of treatment commencement. Outcomes were treatment initiation and completion. We considered costs from a healthcare sector perspective at a 1-year time horizon. We used decision analytical models parameterized with publicly available estimates.

Results: Standard of care laboratory antibody then RNA testing on separate samples was cheapest but least effective. Laboratory antibody then reflex RNA testing on 1 sample provided higher effectiveness and was the only strategy to reduce average cost per completion ($6141 2023AUD; 95% confidence interval, $3924-$10,382). Combined point-of-care antibody and RNA testing, point-of-care RNA alone, and point-of-care antibody with immediate treatment initiation in turn provided incremental improvements in completion at higher average costs per completion (point estimates: $6976-$11 707AUD). Changes in treatment uptake of at least 16 points were required to achieve equivalence between reflex laboratory and point-of-care strategies. Although treatment of nonviremic individuals contributed to higher costs of point-of-care strategies, reflex laboratory testing remained less costly per completion at generic medication costs.

Conclusions: Reflex RNA testing was the most efficient strategy and can be implemented within the existing Australian laboratory framework. Point-of-care approaches may provide additional benefit at higher near-term costs. Studies accounting for transmission and disease sequelae are needed to understand cost-effectiveness in the longer term.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

在澳大利亚,对未接受治疗的注射吸毒者进行丙型肝炎诊断和开始治疗的替代方法的成本效益:基于模型的经济评估。
背景:消除丙型肝炎病毒需要有效的检测和治疗策略。我们评估了在澳大利亚社区环境中对未接受治疗的注射吸毒者进行丙型肝炎病毒诊断和开始治疗的替代方法的成本效益。方法:我们比较了抗体筛选、实验室和/或护理点测试和治疗开始点不同的7种策略。结果是治疗开始和完成。我们从医疗保健行业的角度考虑了1年时间范围内的成本。我们使用决策分析模型参数化与公开可用的估计。结果:标准护理实验室抗体再单独检测RNA最便宜,但效果最差。在1个样本上进行实验室抗体和反射RNA测试提供了更高的有效性,并且是降低每次完成平均成本的唯一策略(6141 2023澳元;95%置信区间为3924- 10,382澳元)。联合护理点抗体和RNA检测,单独护理点RNA检测,以及立即开始治疗的护理点抗体检测,以更高的平均完成成本(点估计:6976美元- 11707澳元)增加了完成度的改善。至少需要改变16个点的治疗摄取,以达到反射实验室和护理点策略之间的等效。尽管对非病毒个体的治疗导致了点护理策略的更高成本,但与仿制药成本相比,每次完成反射实验室检测的成本仍然较低。结论:反射RNA检测是最有效的策略,可以在现有的澳大利亚实验室框架内实施。即时护理方法可以在较高的短期成本下提供额外的好处。需要对传播和疾病后遗症进行研究,以了解长期的成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
630
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Forum Infectious Diseases provides a global forum for the publication of clinical, translational, and basic research findings in a fully open access, online journal environment. The journal reflects the broad diversity of the field of infectious diseases, and focuses on the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice, with a particular emphasis on knowledge that holds the potential to improve patient care in populations around the world. Fully peer-reviewed, OFID supports the international community of infectious diseases experts by providing a venue for articles that further the understanding of all aspects of infectious diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信