ReviewCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Economic evaluations of Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir and Grazoprevir/Elbasvir for the treatment of hepatitis C: a systematic review.
Review in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDirect-acting antivirals (DAAs) have revolutionized hepatitis C (HCV) treatment, yet their high cost necessitates rigorous economic evaluation. Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) and Grazoprevir/Elbasvir (GZR/EBR) are two key, highly effective DAA regimens, but their comparative cost-effectiveness across different healthcare settings remains unclear. This study aims to systematically review and qualitatively synthesize the economic evidence for GLE/PIB and GZR/EBR, comparing them with each other and other relevant HCV treatments.
methodsA systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library for full economic evaluation studies published up to September 2025. The quality of included studies was assessed using the CHEERS checklist. Due to significant heterogeneity in study contexts, populations, and methodologies, a qualitative narrative synthesis was performed, and quantitative pooling of economic outcomes was avoided.
resultsA total of 20 economic evaluation studies were included. Both GLE/PIB and GZR/EBR were consistently found to be cost-effective or dominant strategies when compared to older interferon-based therapies. However, the five head-to-head studies comparing GLE/PIB and GZR/EBR yielded conflicting results: GLE/PIB was the economically preferred option in settings like Japan and Brazil, whereas GZR/EBR was favored in analyses from China and Hong Kong. This variability appears to be primarily driven by differences in local drug acquisition prices.
conclusionNeither GLE/PIB nor GZR/EBR can be considered universally more cost-effective than the other. Both regimens represent valuable advancements over previous standards of care, but the optimal economic choice between them is highly context-dependent. These findings underscore the necessity of using local, setting-specific economic evaluations to inform clinical guidelines and reimbursement policies.
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.