ArticleValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2019
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Shortened Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment in Genotype 1 Noncirrhotic Treatment-Naive Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus.
Article in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of 8-week daclatasvir-sofosbuvir regimen in chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virology journal · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of direct-acting antiviral regimen for patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 2: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Pooled it
- Treatment optimisation for hepatitis C in the era of combination direct-acting antiviral therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Wellcome open research · 2019Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of alternative hepatitis C treatment options: a post hoc analysis of the VIETNARMS trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Budget impact analysis of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir treatment for hepatitis C in Iran: a modelling study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Strategic treatment optimization for HCV (STOPHCV1): a randomised controlled trial of ultrashort duration therapy for chronic hepatitis C.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Impact of virus subtype and hostRNA (New York, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- 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
- Interim effect evaluation of the hepatitis C elimination programme in Georgia: a modelling study.The Lancet. Global health · 2020Article
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
backgroundDirect-acting antivirals are successful in curing hepatitis C virus infection in more than 95% of patients treated for 12 weeks, but they are expensive. Shortened treatment durations, which may have lower cure rates, have been proposed to reduce costs.
objectivesTo evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of different shortened treatment durations for genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients.
methodsAssuming a UK National Health Service perspective, we used a probabilistic decision tree and Markov model to compare 3 unstratified shortened treatment durations (8, 6, and 4 weeks) against a standard 12-week treatment duration. Patients failing shortened first-line treatment were re-treated with a 12-week treatment regimen. Parameter inputs were taken from published studies.
resultsThe 8-week treatment duration had an expected incremental net monetary benefit of £7737 (95% confidence interval £3242-£11 819) versus the standard 12-week treatment, per 1000 patients. The 6-week treatment had a positive incremental net monetary benefit, although some uncertainty was observed. The probability that the 8- and 6-week treatments were the most cost-effective was 56% and 25%, respectively, whereas that for the 4-week treatment was 17%. Results were generally robust to sensitivity analyses, including a threshold analysis that showed that the 8-week treatment was the most cost-effective at all drug prices lower than £40 000 per 12-week course.
conclusionsShortening treatments licensed for 12 weeks to 8 weeks is cost-effective in genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients. There was considerable uncertainty in the estimates for 6- and 4-week treatments, with some indication that the 6-week treatment may be cost-effective.
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.