ArticleJAMA network open2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Point-of-Care Hepatitis C Virus RNA Testing in the US.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. 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
- Missed confirmatory HCV RNA testing in anti-HCV-reactive patients and the role of reflex testing in improving completion of the hepatitis C diagnostic care cascade: a laboratory-based retrospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Observational
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
Importance: The standard of care (SOC) laboratory-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) diagnostic algorithm is associated with high rates of undiagnosed cases, patients lost to follow-up, and low rates of treatment initiation, particularly among high-risk populations. Improving diagnostic efficiency is critical for HCV elimination. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a point-of-care (POC) HCV RNA-first diagnostic strategy compared with SOC across care settings in the US serving people at high-risk of HCV infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a hybrid decision tree and HCV transmission model using real-world claims data and published literature. The model projected clinical and economic outcomes over 1-year and lifetime horizons. Hypothetical cohorts of individuals eligible for HCV testing were modeled in each of 4 care settings-community health centers, emergency departments, harm reduction clinics, and mobile outreach or street medicine programs in the US-and assumed to be primarily people who inject drugs. Exposure: POC HCV RNA-first testing vs SOC laboratory-based HCV antibody and reflex confirmatory RNA testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were rates of HCV diagnosis, linkage to care, treatment initiation, sustained virologic response at week 12 after treatment, forward transmission, long-term complications, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of uncertainty on results. Results: Among modeled cohorts, POC HCV RNA-first testing identified 93.4% of cases vs up to 68.7% with SOC. POC HCV RNA-first testing increased linkage to care (by 37.6%-73.4%), treatment initiation (by 12.1%-48.9%), and sustained virologic response at week 12 after treatment (by 3.6%-26.4%) across care settings. Forward transmission was reduced by 16.3% to 53.3%. Initial costs were higher in some settings, but lifetime costs were lower, with savings of $3387 per person tested. The POC HCV RNA-first strategy was dominant (lower costs and improved outcomes) over SOC across all settings analyzed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic analysis of HCV testing strategies, a POC HCV RNA-first approach was found to be cost-effective and clinically optimal for high-risk populations, and may represent a critical component of HCV elimination efforts in the US.
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.