ArticleJAMA network open2020
Cost-effectiveness of Universal and Targeted Hepatitis C Virus Screening in the United States.
Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Informing the Equitable Implementation of Hepatitis C Interventions: Cost-Effectiveness Modeling in Rural Populations of People Who Inject Drugs.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Health Benefits of Screening for Co-occurring Alcohol-, Substance-, and Mood-related Conditions for At-Risk Populations: A Mathematical Modeling Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Hepatitis C Screening: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2026Article
- Efficiency of decentralized screening for hepatitis C in different healthcare settings: retrospective study over 6 years in southeastern Spain.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Using Community-Based Participatory Research Strategies to Promote Liver Cancer Prevention.Social sciences · 2025Article
- Influence of insurance type on healthcare utilization among rural people who use drugs.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2025Article
- Development of the natural history component of an early economic model for primary sclerosing cholangitis.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Hepatitis C screening in Lithuania: first-year results and scenarios for achieving WHO elimination targets.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Changes in Use of Hepatitis C Direct-Acting Antivirals After Access Restrictions Were Eased by State Medicaid Programs.JAMA health forum · 2024Article
- Review
- Hepatitis C cure and medications for opioid use disorder improve health-related quality of life in patients with opioid use disorder actively engaged in substance use.The International journal on drug policy · 2023Observational
- Economic Impact of Universal Hepatitis C Virus Testing for Middle-Aged Adults Who Inject Drugs.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
- An Easy-to-Implement Risk Score for Targeted Hepatitis C Virus Testing in the General Population.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Hepatitis C virus: A critical approach to who really needs treatment.World journal of hepatology · 2022Review
- Engaging the Community in Designing a Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Program for Adults Experiencing Homelessness.Qualitative health research · 2021Article
- A Review of Hepatitis B Virus and Hepatitis C Virus Immunopathogenesis.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2021Review
- The largest vaccination campaign in history: A golden opportunity for bundling public health interventions.Journal of global health · 2021Review
- Implementing a Surveillance-Based Approach to Create a Statewide Viral Clearance Cascade for Hepatitis C Among People With HIV and HCV Coinfection in Connecticut.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Between 2 and 3.5 million people live with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in the US, most of whom (approximately 75%) are not aware of their disease. Despite the availability of effective HCV treatment in the early stages of infection, HCV will result in thousands of deaths in the next decade in the US. Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of universal screening for all US adults aged 18 years or older for HCV in the US and of targeted screening of people who inject drugs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This simulated economic evaluation used cohort analyses in a Markov model to perform a 10 000-participant Monte Carlo microsimulation trail to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HCV screening programs, and compared screening programs targeting people who inject drugs with universal screening of US adults age 18 years or older. Data were analyzed in December 2019. Exposures: Cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost per QALY gained. Results: In a 10 000 Monte Carlo microsimulation trail that compared a baseline of individuals aged 40 years (men and women) and people who inject drugs in the US, screening and treatment for HCV were estimated to increase total costs by $10 457 per person and increase QALYs by 0.23 (approximately 3 months), providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $45 465 per QALY. Also, universal screening and treatment for HCV are estimated to increase total costs by $2845 per person and increase QALYs by 0.01, providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $291 277 per QALY. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that HCV screening for people who inject drugs may be a cost-effective intervention to combat HCV infection in the US, which could potentially decrease the risk of untreated HCV infection and liver-related mortality.
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.