ArticleAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2017
The cost-effectiveness of testing for NS5a resistance-associated polymorphisms at baseline in genotype 1a-infected (treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced) subjects treated with all-oral elbasvir/grazoprevir regimens in the United States.
Article in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Elbasvir/Grazoprevir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Economic evaluations of Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir and Grazoprevir/Elbasvir for the treatment of hepatitis C: a systematic review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Review
- Cost-Utility of All-Oral Direct-Acting Antiviral Regimens for the Treatment of Genotype 1 Chronic Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Patients in Hong Kong.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Testing for NS5A Resistance to Optimize Treatment of Elbasvir/Grazoprevir for Chronic Hepatitis C in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Baseline Testing for Resistance-Associated Polymorphisms to Optimize Treatment Outcome in Genotype 1 Noncirrhotic Treatment-Naïve Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2020Article
- Characterization ofViruses · 2018Article
- Verification of Decision-Analytic Models for Health Economic Evaluations: An Overview.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Review
- Population Health and Cost-Effectiveness Implications of a "Treat All" Recommendation for HCV: A Review of the Model-Based Evidence.MDM policy & practiceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe presence of baseline NS5A resistance-associated variants (RAVs) impacted treatment response in HCV genotype 1a (GT1a)-infected patients treated with elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) for 12 weeks, but not patients treated with EBR/GZR and ribavirin (RBV) for 16 weeks.
aimsTo assess the cost-effectiveness of baseline testing for NS5A RAVs in EBR/GZR-treated patients compared without testing, and with current treatments for GT1a patients.
methodsWe simulated the course of treatment with EBR/GZR, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) and ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir+dasabuvir (3D) with or without RBV and natural history of disease of GT1a patients. Treatment-related data from clinical trials were used in a state-transition model of the natural history of chronic HCV GT1a infection and liver disease to project lifetime costs (US$2015) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Other clinical and economic inputs were estimated from published sources. We conducted base case and sensitivity analyses.
resultsRAVs testing-guided treatment with EBR/GZR resulted in more QALYs than EBR/GZR without testing, 3D+RBV, or LDV/SOF8. This strategy was cost-saving relative to 3D+RBV or LDV/SOF8 and was cost-effective compared with EBR/GZR without testing. LDV/SOF12 was not cost-effective compared with the EBR/GZR RAVs testing-based strategy. Treatment with EBR/GZR guided by RAVs testing is the most effective regimen among treatment-experienced patients without cirrhosis and cirrhotic patients. In sensitivity analysis, RAVs testing was cost-effective in 48-55% and 63-85% among noncirrhotic and cirrhotic patients respectively.
conclusionsRAVs testing before treatment with EBR/GZR is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to the use of EBR/GZR without testing, LDV/SOF, or 3D among GT1a treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.