ArticlePloS one2020
Cost-effectiveness analysis of an outreach model of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) assessment to facilitate HCV treatment in primary care.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Hepatitis C in Clients on Opioid Agonist Therapy in Community Pharmacies Compared to Primary Healthcare in Australia.Journal of viral hepatitis · 2025Article
- Cost of providing co-located hepatitis C treatment at a syringe service program exceeds potential reimbursement: Results from a clinical trial.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effects of hepatitis C virus (HCV), such as morbidity and mortality associated with cirrhosis and liver cancer, is a major public health issue in Australia. Highly effective treatment has recently been made available to all Australians living with HCV. A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the hepatology partnership, compared to usual care. A Markov model was chosen, as it is state-based and able to include recursive events, which accurately reflects the natural history of the chronic and repetitive nature of HCV. Cost-effectiveness of the new model of care is indicated by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), where the mean change to costs associated with the new model of care is divided by the mean change in quality adjusted life-years (QALYs). Ten thousand iterations of the model were run, with the majority (73%) of ICERs representing cost-savings. In comparison to usual care, the intervention improves health outcomes (22.38 QALYs gained) and reduces costs by $42,122 per patient. When compared to usual care, a partnership approach to management of HCV is cost-effective and good value for money, even when key model parameters are changed in scenario analyses. Reduction in costs is driven by improved efficiency of the new model of care, where more patients are treated in a timely manner, away from the expensive tertiary setting. From an economic perspective, a reduction in hospital-based care is a positive outcome and represents a good investment for decision-makers who wish to maximise health gain per dollar spent.
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.