ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2020
Cost-effectiveness of the HepCATT intervention in specialist drug clinics to improve case-finding and engagement with HCV treatment for people who inject drugs in England.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to Improve Uptake of Direct-Acting Antivirals for Hepatitis C Virus in Priority Populations: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Informing the Equitable Implementation of Hepatitis C Interventions: Cost-Effectiveness Modeling in Rural Populations of People Who Inject Drugs.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators to hepatitis C patient engagement: Interview study with general practitioner champions in England.PloS one · 2026Article
- Patient roadmap and economic burden of chronic tick-borne illness and post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome in Ireland, and public health issues arising.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Clinical and demographic characteristics of participants in a hepatitis C treatment trial in rural Kentucky: How policies around treatment access may impact elimination efforts in the United States.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026Article
- Health and Economic Impact of Periodic Hepatitis C Virus Testing Among People Who Inject Drugs.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Community Pop-Up Clinic: Cascade of Care and HCV Treatment of Vancouver's Inner-City PWID Populations.Journal of viral hepatitis · 2025Article
- Pilot postal birth cohort hepatitis C virus screening in UK primary care: HepCAPP study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Impact and cost-effectiveness of scaling up HCV testing and treatment strategies for achieving HCV elimination among people who inject drugs in England: a mathematical modelling study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of integrated treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) among people who inject drugs in Norway: An economic evaluation of the INTRO-HCV trial.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2023Article
- Opportunities and ChallengesAJPM focus · 2023Article
- Potential interventions to support HCV treatment uptake among HIV co-infected people in Canada: Perceptions of patients and health care providers.Canadian liver journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPeople who inject drugs (PWID) are at high risk of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection; however, ~50% are undiagnosed in England and linkage-to-care is poor. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of an intervention (HepCATT) to improve case-finding and referral to HCV treatment compared with standard-of-care pathways in drug treatment centres in England.
designHCV transmission and disease progression model with cost-effectiveness analysis using a health-care perspective. Primary outcome and cost data from the HepCATT study parameterized the intervention, suggesting that HepCATT increased HCV testing in drug treatment centres 2.5-fold and engagement onto the HCV treatment pathway 10-fold. A model was used to estimate the decrease in HCV infections and HCV-related deaths from 2016, with costs and health benefits (quality-adjusted life-years or QALYs) tracked over 50 years. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were undertaken.
settingEngland-specific epidemic with 40% prevalence of chronic HCV among PWID.
participantsPWID attending drug treatment centres.
interventionNurse facilitator in drug treatment centres to improve the HCV care pathway from HCV case-finding to referral and linkage to specialist care. Comparator was the standard-of-care HCV care pathway. MEASUREMENTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per QALY gained through improved case-finding.
findingsOver 50 years per 1000 PWID, the HepCATT intervention could prevent 75 (95% central interval 37-129) deaths and 1330 (827-2040) or 51% (30-67%) of all new infections. The mean ICER was £7986 per QALY gained, with all PSA simulations being cost-effective at a £20 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Univariable sensitivity analyses suggest the intervention would become cost-saving if the cost of HCV treatment reduces to £3900. If scaled up to all PWID in England, the intervention would cost £8.8 million and decrease incidence by 56% (33-70%) by 2030.
conclusionsIncreasing hepatitis C virus infection case-finding and treatment referral in drug treatment centres could be a highly cost-effective strategy for decreasing hepatitis C virus incidence among people who inject drugs.
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.