The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prioritization of HCV treatment in the direct-acting antiviral era: An economic evaluation
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: We determined the optimal HCV treatment prioritization strategy for interferon-free (IFN-free) HCV direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) by disease stage and risk status incorporating treatment of people who inject drugs (PWID). METHODS: A dynamic HCV transmission and progression model compared the cost-effectiveness of treating patients early vs. delaying until cirrhosis for patients with mild or moderate fibrosis, where PWID chronic HCV prevalence was 20, 40 or 60%. Treatment duration was 12weeks at £3300/wk, to achieve a 95% sustained viral response and was varied by genotype/stage in alternative scenarios. We estimated long-term health costs (in £UK=€1.3=$1.5) and outcomes as quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained using a £20,000 willingness to pay per QALY threshold. We ranked strategies with net monetary benefit (NMB); negative NMB implies delay treatment. RESULTS: The most cost-effective group to treat were PWID with moderate fibrosis (mean NMB per early treatment £60,640/£23,968 at 20/40% chronic prevalence, respectively), followed by PWID with mild fibrosis (NMB £59,258 and £19,421, respectively) then ex-PWID/non-PWID with moderate fibrosis (NMB £9,404). Treatment of ex-PWID/non-PWID with mild fibrosis could be delayed (NMB -£3,650). In populations with 60% chronic HCV among PWID it was only cost-effective to prioritize DAAs to ex-PWID/non-PWID with moderate fibrosis. For every one PWID in the 20% chronic HCV setting, 2 new HCV infections were averted. One extra HCV-related death was averted per 13 people with moderate disease treated. Rankings were unchanged with reduced drug costs or varied sustained virological response/duration by genotype/fibrosis stage. CONCLUSIONS: Treating PWID with moderate or mild HCV with IFN-free DAAs is cost-effective compared to delay until cirrhosis, except when chronic HCV prevalence and reinfection risk is very high.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cornish, R., Macleod, J., Strang, J., Vickerman, P., & Hickman, M. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c5475 · Cited by 307
Self-citation
Cited by
Strang, J., Volkow, N. D., Degenhardt, L., Hickman, M., Johnson, K., Koob, G. F., Marshall, B. D. L., Tyndall, M., & Walsh, S. L. (2020) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0137-5 · Cited by 639
Self-citationBarbosa, C., Fraser, H., Hoerger, T. J., Leib, A., Havens, J. R., Young, A., Kral, A., Page, K., Evans, J., Zibbell, J., et al. (2019) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.14731 · Cited by 48
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Martin, N. K., Vickerman, P., Dore, G. J., Grebely, J., Miners, A., Cairns, J., Foster, G. R., Hutchinson, S. J., Goldberg, D. J., Martin, T. C. S., Ramsay, M., & Hickman, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Hepatology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-07
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-25
- ISSN
- 0168-8278 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2345197548
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 23.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prioritization of HCV treatment in the direct-acting antiviral era: An economic evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jhep.2016.02.007
- The paper
- Martin, N. K., Vickerman, P., Dore, G. J., Grebely, J., Miners, A., Cairns, J., Foster, G. R., Hutchinson, S. J., Goldberg, D. J., Martin, T. C. S., Ramsay, M., & Hickman, M. (2016). Prioritization of HCV treatment in the direct-acting antiviral era: An economic evaluation. Journal of Hepatology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2016.02.007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.