ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2025
Cost-effectiveness of Alternative Approaches to Hepatitis C Diagnosis and Treatment Initiation for Treatment-naive People Who Inject Drugs in Australia: A Model-based Economic Evaluation.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2025. 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.
- Reimagining Hepatitis C Elimination: Time for Actions, Not Targets.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2026Article
- Reflex Testing for Hepatitis D Infection: A Unique Opportunity to Reduce Hepatitis D-Related Chronic Liver Disease Deaths in Australia.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Eliminating hepatitis C virus requires efficient testing and treatment strategies. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of alternative hepatitis C virus diagnosis and treatment initiation approaches for treatment-naive people who inject drugs attending Australian community settings. Methods: We compared 7 strategies differing by use of antibody screening, laboratory, and/or point-of-care tests, and point of treatment commencement. Outcomes were treatment initiation and completion. We considered costs from a healthcare sector perspective at a 1-year time horizon. We used decision analytical models parameterized with publicly available estimates. Results: Standard of care laboratory antibody then RNA testing on separate samples was cheapest but least effective. Laboratory antibody then reflex RNA testing on 1 sample provided higher effectiveness and was the only strategy to reduce average cost per completion ($6141 2023AUD; 95% confidence interval, $3924-$10,382). Combined point-of-care antibody and RNA testing, point-of-care RNA alone, and point-of-care antibody with immediate treatment initiation in turn provided incremental improvements in completion at higher average costs per completion (point estimates: $6976-$11 707AUD). Changes in treatment uptake of at least 16 points were required to achieve equivalence between reflex laboratory and point-of-care strategies. Although treatment of nonviremic individuals contributed to higher costs of point-of-care strategies, reflex laboratory testing remained less costly per completion at generic medication costs. Conclusions: Reflex RNA testing was the most efficient strategy and can be implemented within the existing Australian laboratory framework. Point-of-care approaches may provide additional benefit at higher near-term costs. Studies accounting for transmission and disease sequelae are needed to understand cost-effectiveness in the longer term.
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.