ArticleGlobal & regional health technology assessment
Clinical and economic benefits of a new paradigm of HCV diagnosis and treatment.
Article in Global & regional health technology assessment. 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.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new paradigm to simplify testing, monitoring and treatment of hepatitis C virus in the United States.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The current paradigm (CP) of hepatitis C virus (HCV) diagnosis and treatment in Italy's National Health Service system has numerous steps. The European Association for the Study of the Liver recommends initiation of a pan-genotypic direct-acting antiviral regimen after a simple diagnostic process. The present study estimated the efficiency gains resulting from two simplified pathways from diagnosis to treatment of chronic hepatitis C patients in Italy over the next 5 years from a societal perspective. Methods: The CP, a New Paradigm 1 (NP1), and a New Paradigm 2 (NP2) were evaluated in a Markov model. The NP1 model simplifies monitoring and laboratory test requirements in the diagnosis and treatment phases. The NP2 model also eliminates the primary care referral requirement. Results: Treatment process time for non-cirrhotic patients was 48, 43, and 25 weeks in the CP, NP1, and NP2, respectively, and in cirrhotic patients was 49, 46, and 37 weeks. Under the CP, 19% of patients/year would be lost to follow-up, which decreases by 11% in NP1 and 100% in NP2. Compared with the CP, implementation of NP1 at 5 years would reduce compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related deaths by 12.6%, 12.4%, 8.1%, and 8.8%, respectively; these cases would be reduced by 94.0%, 93.8%, 61.0%, and 58.4% in NP2. Total 5-year costs with the CP, NP1, and NP2 are estimated at 135.6€ million, 110.5€ million, and 80.5€ million, respectively. Conclusions: Simplification of HCV diagnosis and monitoring requirements would allow Italy to move closer to international guidelines with significant health benefits and economic gains.
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.