4.7 Article

Cost-effectiveness of Direct Antiviral Agents for Hepatitis C Virus Infection and a Combined Intervention of Syringe Access and Medication-assisted Therapy for Opioid Use Disorders in an Injection Drug Use Population

Journal

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 70, Issue 12, Pages 2652-2662

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz726

Keywords

cost-effectiveness; HCV; PWID; combination intervention; DAA

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse [R01 DA034637]
  2. Center for Drug Use and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Research National Institutes of Health [P30 DA011041]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. There are too many plausible permutations and scale-up scenarios of combination hepatitis C virus (HCV) interventions for exhaustive testing in experimental trials. Therefore, we used a computer simulation to project the health and economic impacts of alternative combination intervention scenarios for people who inject drugs (PWID), focusing on direct antiviral agents (DAA) and medication-assisted treatment combined with syringe access programs (MAT+). Methods. We performed an allocative efficiency study, using a mathematical model to simulate the progression of HCV in PWID and its related consequences. We combined 2 previously validated simulations to estimate the cost-effectiveness of intervention strategies that included a range of coverage levels. Analyses were performed from a health-sector and societal perspective, with a 15-year time horizon and a discount rate of 3%. Results. From a health-sector perspective (excluding criminal justice system-related costs), 4 potential strategies fell on the cost-efficiency frontier. At 20% coverage, DAAs had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27 251/quality-adjusted lifeyear (QALY). Combinations of DAA at 20% with MAT+ at 20%, 40%, and 80% coverage had ICERs of $165 985/QALY, $325 860/QALY, and $399 189/QALY, respectively. When analyzed from a societal perspective (including criminal justice system-related costs), DAA at 20% with MAT+ at 80% was the most effective intervention and was cost saving. While DAA at 20% with MAT+ at 80% was more expensive (eg, less cost saving) than MAT+ at 80% alone without DAA, it offered a favorable value compared to MAT+ at 80% alone ($23 932/QALY). Conclusions. When considering health-sector costs alone, DAA alone was the most cost-effective intervention. However, with criminal justice system-related costs, DAA and MAT+ implemented together became the most cost-effective intervention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available