Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31198187›Full record

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.

Christopher G Fawsitt, Peter Vickerman, Graham Cooke, Nicky J Welton, STOP-HCV Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Impact of virus subtype and hostRNA (New York, N.Y.) · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Christopher G FawsittDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK. Electronic address: c.fawsitt@bristol.ac.uk.
Peter VickermanDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK.
Graham CookeDepartment of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, England, UK.
Nicky J WeltonDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK.
STOP-HCV Consortium

Funding

Department of Health EME/14/02/17Department of Health RP-2016-07-012Medical Research Council G0400802Medical Research Council G0801976Medical Research Council G0802413Medical Research Council G1100247Medical Research Council MC_UU_12014/1Medical Research Council MR/K01532X/1Wellcome Trust 109965/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

Aminoisobutyric AcidsAntiviral AgentsBenzimidazolesBenzopyransCarbamatesCost-Benefit AnalysisCyclopropanesDecision TreesHepacivirusHepatitis C, ChronicHeterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More RingsHumansLactams, MacrocyclicLeucineMacrocyclic CompoundsMarkov ChainsAminoisobutyric AcidsAntiviral AgentsBenzimidazolesBenzopyransCarbamatesCyclopropanesHeterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More RingsLactams, MacrocyclicLeucineMacrocyclic CompoundsProlineQuinoxalinesSofosbuvirSulfonamidesvelpatasvirvoxilaprevircost-effectivenessdirect-acting antiviralshepatitis C virusshortened treatment duration

Identifiers

PMID31198187
PMCPMC6588649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.