Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29895281›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2018

Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review of model-based analyses.

Rodolfo Castro, Louise Crathorne, Hugo Perazzo, Julio Silva, Chris Cooper, Jo Varley-Campbell, Daniel Savignon Marinho, Marcela Haasova, Valdilea G Veloso, Rob Anderson and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rodolfo CastroFundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, INI, Avenida Brasil, 4365, 21040-900, Manguinhos, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. rodolfo.castro@ini.fiocruz.br.ORCID 0000-0002-0701-2528
Louise CrathorneUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, ESMI, Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, PenTAG, Exeter, UK.
Hugo PerazzoFundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, INI, Avenida Brasil, 4365, 21040-900, Manguinhos, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Julio SilvaFundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, INI, Avenida Brasil, 4365, 21040-900, Manguinhos, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Chris CooperUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, ESMI, Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, PenTAG, Exeter, UK.
Jo Varley-CampbellUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, ESMI, Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, PenTAG, Exeter, UK.
Daniel Savignon Marinho, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Centro de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico em Saúde, CDTS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Marcela HaasovaUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, ESMI, Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, PenTAG, Exeter, UK.
Valdilea G VelosoFundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, INI, Avenida Brasil, 4365, 21040-900, Manguinhos, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Rob AndersonUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, ESMI, Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, PenTAG, Exeter, UK.
Chris HydeUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Evidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, ESMI, Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, PenTAG, Exeter, UK.
University of Exeter · GBFundação Oswaldo Cruz · BR

Funding

The FIOCRUZ Therapeutic and Prevention HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Unit (FioTrials)UM1AI069476 · NIAID · FUNDACAO OSWALDO CRUZ · PI BEATRIZ GRINSZTEJN · 2012 to 2026
$26.3M
Medical Research Council MR/M026515/1NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI069476
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecisions about which subgroup of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients should be treated with direct acting anti-viral agents (DAAs) have economic importance due to high drug prices. Treat-all DAA strategies for CHC have gained acceptance despite high drug acquisition costs. However, there are also costs associated with the surveillance of CHC to determine a subgroup of patients with significant impairment. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the modelling methods used and summarise results in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of both CHC treatment with DAAs and surveillance of liver disease.

methodsElectronic databases including Embase and Medline were searched from inception to May 2015. Eligible studies included models predicting costs and/or outcomes for interventions, surveillance, or management of people with CHC. Narrative and quantitative synthesis were conducted. Quality appraisal was conducted using validated checklists. The review was conducted following principles published by NHS Centre for Research and Dissemination.

resultsForty-one CEAs met the eligibility criteria for the review; 37 evaluated an intervention and four evaluated surveillance strategies for targeting DAA treatment to those likely to gain most benefit. Included studies were of variable quality mostly due to reporting omissions. Of the 37 CEAs, eight models that enabled comparative analysis were fully appraised and synthesized. These models provided non-unique cost-effectiveness estimates in a specific DAA comparison in a specific population defined in terms of genotype, prior treatment status, and presence or absence of cirrhosis. Marked heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness estimates was observed despite this stratification. Approximately half of the estimates suggested that DAAs were cost-effective considering a threshold of US$30,000 and 73% with threshold of US$50,000. Two models evaluating surveillance strategies suggested that treating all CHC patients regardless of the staging of liver disease could be cost-effective.

conclusionsCEAs of CHC treatments need to better account for variability in their estimates. This analysis suggested that there are still circumstances where DAAs are not cost-effective. Surveillance in place of a treat-all strategy may still need to be considered as an option for deploying DAAs, particularly where acquisition cost is at the limit of affordability for a given health system.

Indexed as

Antiviral AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisHepacivirusHepatitis C, ChronicHumansMarkov ChainsModels, EconomicOutcome Assessment, Health CarePopulation SurveillanceQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAntiviral AgentsCost-effectiveness analysisHealth technology assessmentHepatitis C

Identifiers

PMID29895281
PMCPMC5998601
OpenAlexW2808360468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.