Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31782503›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2019

The cost-effectiveness of an HCV outreach intervention for at-risk populations in London, UK.

Zoe Ward, Linda Campbell, Julian Surey, Steven Platts, Rachel Glass, Matthew Hickman, Alistair Story, Peter Vickerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Beyond Brick and Mortar: The Rise of Street Medicine.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. 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

8 authors.

Zoe WardPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Linda CampbellPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Julian SureyFind & Treat, NHS, London, UK.
Steven PlattsGroundswell, London, UK.
Rachel GlassHIV & STI Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Matthew HickmanPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Alistair StoryInstitute of Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Peter VickermanPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-DG-0610-10055Department of Health RP-PG-0616-20008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHCV disproportionately affects marginalized communities such as homeless populations and people who inject drugs (PWID), posing a challenge to traditional health services. The HepFriend initiative in London is a model of care utilizing HCV outreach screening and peer support to link vulnerable individuals to HCV treatment in secondary care.

objectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of the HepFriend initiative from a healthcare provider perspective, compared with standard-of-care pathways (consisting of testing in primary care and other static locations, including drug treatment centres, and linkage to secondary care).

methodsCost-effectiveness analysis using a dynamic HCV transmission and disease progression model among PWID and those who have ceased injecting, including housing status and drug treatment service contact. The model was parameterized using London-specific surveillance and survey data, and primary intervention cost and effectiveness data (September 2015 to June 2018). Out of 461 individuals screened, 197 were identified as HCV RNA positive, 180 attended secondary care and 89 have commenced treatment to date. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was determined using a 50 year time horizon.

resultsFor a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20000 per QALY gained, the HepFriend initiative is cost-effective, with a mean ICER of £9408/QALY, and would become cost saving at 27% (£10525 per treatment) of the current drug list price. Results are robust to variations in intervention costs and model assumptions, and if treatment rates are doubled the intervention becomes more cost-effective (£8853/QALY).

conclusionsNew models of care that undertake active case-finding with enhanced peer support to improve testing and treatment uptake amongst marginalized and vulnerable groups could be highly cost-effective and possibly cost saving.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAntiviral AgentsDrug UsersHealth Care CostsHepatitis C, ChronicHumansLondonMass ScreeningModels, TheoreticalSocial MarginalizationUnited KingdomAntiviral Agents

Identifiers

PMID31782503
PMCPMC6883400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.