ReviewCanadian liver journal2018
Can we afford not to screen and treat hepatitis C virus infection in Canada?
Review in Canadian liver journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of New Direct-Acting Antiviral Therapy on the Prevalence and Undiagnosed Proportion of Chronic Hepatitis C Infection in Alberta: A Model-Based Analysis.Canadian liver journal · 2025Article
- A province-by-province cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis of one-time birth cohort screening of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in Canada.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Economic Impact of Universal Hepatitis C Virus Testing for Middle-Aged Adults Who Inject Drugs.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
- National Hepatitis C estimates: Incidence, prevalence, undiagnosed proportion and treatment, Canada, 2019.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2022Article
- Educational interventions to improve hepatitis C testing or treatment in South Asian communities: A systematic review.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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) followed by direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment in individuals born between 1945 and 1964 has been shown to be both effective and cost-effective, but the question of affordability remains unresolved. We looked at long-term cost and health outcomes of HCV screening for Ontario up to 2030. Methods: We used a validated state-transition model to analyze the budget and health impact of HCV screening followed by DAA treatment in individuals born between 1945 and 1964 versus current practice. We used a payer's perspective, discounting costs at an annual rate of 1.5%. Costs, liver-related deaths, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and decompensated cirrhosis (DC) cases detected were measured over a 14-year period. Results: By 2030, the cost of implementing a HCV screening program for individuals born between 1945 and 1964 will add an additional $845 million to the Ontario health care budget. Sensitivity analyses showed that DAA costs had the largest effect on the budget, and decreasing DAA costs to $16,000 will lead to a significantly lower budget impact of $331 million. Regarding population health, a screen-and-treat strategy will prevent 1,199 cases of HCC, 1,565 cases of DC, and 1,665 liver-related deaths by 2030. Conclusions: Contrasting the budget impact of this HCV screening strategy with other recommended health services and technologies, we conclude that HCV screening should be considered affordable. If Canada is committed to meeting the targets set out by the World Health Organization, then provinces cannot afford to not expand current screening programs.
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.