ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2018
Economically Efficient Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Prioritization Improves Health Outcomes.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-centeredness-a cultural targeted survey among junior medical managers.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- Significant Improvement in Diagnosis of Hepatitis C Virus Infection by a One-Step Strategy in a Central Laboratory: an Optimal Tool for Hepatitis C Elimination?Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of chronic hepatitis C treatment in the prison population in Spain.Revista espanola de sanidad penitenciariaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe total cost of treating the 3 million Americans chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) represents a substantial affordability challenge requiring treatment prioritization. This study compares the health and economic outcomes of alternative treatment prioritization schedules.
methodsWe developed a multiyear HCV treatment budget allocation model to evaluate the tradeoffs of 7 prioritization strategies. We used optimization to identify the priority schedule that maximizes population net monetary benefit (NMB). We compared prioritization schedules in terms of the number of individuals treated, the number of individuals who progress to end-stage liver disease (ESLD), and population total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We applied the model to the population of treatment-naive patients with a total annual HCV treatment budget of US$8.6 billion.
resultsFirst-come, first-served (FCFS) treats the fewest people with advanced fibrosis, prevents the fewest cases of ESLD, and gains the fewest QALYs. A schedule developed from optimizing population NMB prioritizes treatment in the first year to patients with moderate to severe fibrosis who are younger than 65 years, followed by older individuals with moderate to severe fibrosis. While this strategy yields the greatest population QALYs, prioritization by disease severity alone prevents more cases of ESLD. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the differences between prioritization schedules are greater when the budget is smaller. A 10% annual treatment price reduction enabled treatment 1 year sooner to several patient subgroups, specifically older patients and those with less severe liver fibrosis.
conclusionIn the absence of a sufficient budget to treat all patients, explicit prioritization targeting younger people with more severe disease first provides the greatest health benefits. We provide our spreadsheet model so that decision makers can compare health tradeoffs of different budget levels and various prioritization strategies with inputs tailored to their population.
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.