ArticlePloS one2020
A tool to measure the impact of inaction toward elimination of hepatitis C: A case study in Korea.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Timing of elimination of hepatitis C virus in Canada's provinces.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsHepatitis C virus (HCV) and its sequelae present a significant source of economic and societal burden. Introduction of highly effective curative therapies has made HCV elimination attainable. The study used a predictive model to assess the clinical and economic impact of implementing national screening and treatment policies toward HCV elimination in Korea.
methodsA previously validated Markov disease progression model of HCV infection was employed to analyze the clinical and economic impact of various strategies for HCV diagnosis and treatment in Korea. In this analysis, the model compared the clinical and economic outcomes of current HCV-related interventions in Korea (7,000 patients treated and 4,200 patients newly diagnosed annually, starting in 2017) to four elimination scenarios: 1) initiating sufficient diagnosis and treatment interventions to meet the World Health Organization's GHSS elimination targets by 2030, 2) delaying initiation of interventions by one year, 3) delaying initiation of interventions by two years and 4) accelerating initiation of interventions to meet elimination targets by 2025. Modelled historical incidence of HCV was calibrated to match a viremic HCV prevalence of 0.44% in 2009. Elimination scenarios required 24,000 treatments and 34,000 newly diagnosed patients annually, starting in 2018, to reach the 2030 targets.
resultsCompared to current "status quo" interventions, elimination (or accelerated elimination by 2025) would avert 23,700 (27,000) incident cases of HCV, 1,300 (1,400) liver-related deaths (LRDs) and 2,900 (3,100) cases of end-stage liver disease (ESLD) over the 2017-2030 time period. Postponing interventions by one (or two) years would avert 21,100 (18,600) new HCV infections, 920 (660) LRDs and 2,000 (1,400) cases of ESLD by 2030. Following elimination or accelerated elimination strategies would save 860 million USD or 1.1 billion USD by 2030, respectively, compared to the status quo, requiring an up-front investment in prevention that decreases spending on liver-related complications and death.
conclusionsBy projecting the impact of interventions and tracking progress toward GHSS elimination targets using modelling, we demonstrate that Korea can prevent significant morbidity, mortality and spending on HCV. Results should serve as the backbone for policy and decision-making, demonstrating how aggressive prevention measures are designed to reduce future costs and increase the health of the public.
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.