Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34595063›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

Hepatitis C core antigen test as an alternative for diagnosing HCV infection: mathematical model and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Maryam Sadeghimehr, Barbara Bertisch, Francesco Negro, Maia Butsashvili, Sonjelle Shilton, Irina Tskhomelidze, Maia Tsereteli, Olivia Keiser, Janne Estill

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Maryam SadeghimehrInstitute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Barbara BertischInstitute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Francesco NegroDivisions of Gastroenterology and Hepatology and of Clinical Pathology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Maia ButsashviliClinic Neolab, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Sonjelle ShiltonFIND, Geneva, Switzerland.
Irina TskhomelidzeTEPHINET for Georgia Hepatitis C Elimination Program, I. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Maia TsereteliDepartment of HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, STI and TB, National Center for Disease Control and Public Health, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Olivia KeiserInstitute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Janne EstillInstitute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
University of Geneva · CHFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics · CHNational Center for Disease Control and Public Health · GENeoGenomics (United States) · USTraining Programs in Epidemiology and Public Health Interventions Network · USUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CHUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe cost and complexity of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test are barriers to diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of testing strategies using antigen instead of PCR testing.

methodsWe developed a mathematical model for HCV to estimate the number of diagnoses and cases of liver disease. We compared the following testing strategies: antibody test followed by PCR in case of positive antibody (baseline strategy); antibody test followed by HCV-antigen test (antibody-antigen); antigen test alone; PCR test alone. We conducted cost-effectiveness analyses considering either the costs of HCV testing of infected and uninfected individuals alone (A1), HCV testing and liver-related complications (A2), or all costs including HCV treatment (A3). The model was parameterized for the country of Georgia. We conducted several sensitivity analyses.

resultsThe baseline scenario could detect 89% of infected individuals. Antibody-antigen detected 86% and antigen alone 88% of infected individuals. PCR testing alone detected 91% of the infected individuals: the remaining 9% either died or spontaneously recovered before testing. In analysis A1, the baseline strategy was not essentially more expensive than antibody-antigen. In analysis A2, strategies using PCR became cheaper than antigen-based strategies. In analysis A3, antibody-antigen was again the cheapest strategy, followed by the baseline strategy, and PCR testing alone.

conclusionsAntigen testing, either following a positive antibody test or alone, performed almost as well as the current practice of HCV testing. The cost-effectiveness of these strategies depends on the inclusion of treatment costs.

Indexed as

AntigenCountry of GeorgiaDiagnostic testHCVHepatitis CMathematical modelingPCRPolymerase chain reactionProgression modelScreening strategies

Identifiers

PMID34595063
PMCPMC8436958
OpenAlexW3200264547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.