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.
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.
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.