Cited by 48HIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskHepatitis C virus researchHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Cost-effectiveness of scaling-up HCV prevention and treatment in the United States for people who inject drugs.

Open access
Barbosa, Carolina, Fraser, Hannah, Hoerger, Thomas J., Leib, Alyssa, Havens, Jennifer R., Young, April, Kral, Alex, Page, Kimberly +7 more·2019·Addiction

Abstract

AIMS: To examine the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment of people who inject drugs (PWID), combined with medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and syringe-service programs (SSP), to tackle the increasing HCV epidemic in the United States. DESIGN: HCV transmission and disease progression models with cost-effectiveness analysis using a health-care perspective. SETTING: Rural Perry County, KY (PC) and urban San Francisco, CA (SF), USA. Compared with PC, SF has a greater proportion of PWID with access to MAT or SSP. HCV treatment of PWID is negligible in both settings. PARTICIPANTS: PWID data were collected between 1998 and 2015 from Social Networks Among Appalachian People, U Find Out, Urban Health Study and National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System studies. INTERVENTIONS AND COMPARATOR: Three intervention scenarios modeled: baseline-existing SSP and MAT coverage with HCV screening and treatment with direct-acting antiviral for ex-injectors only as per standard of care; intervention 1-scale-up of SSP and MAT without changes to treatment; and intervention 2-scale-up as intervention 1 combined with HCV screening and treatment for current PWID. MEASUREMENTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and uncertainty using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Benefits were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). FINDINGS: For both settings, intervention 2 is preferred to intervention 1 and the appropriate comparator for intervention 2 is the baseline scenario. Relative to baseline, for PC intervention 2 averts 1852 more HCV infections, increases QALYS by 3095, costs $21.6 million more and has an ICER of $6975/QALY. For SF, intervention 2 averts 36 473 more HCV infections, increases QALYs by 7893, costs $872 million more and has an ICER of $11 044/QALY. The cost-effectiveness of intervention 2 was robust to several sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatitis C screening and treatment for people who inject drugs, combined with medication-assisted treatment and syringe-service programs, is a cost-effective strategy for reducing hepatitis C burden in the United States.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/add.14731

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Regular screening of persons with HIV for HCV is cost-effective.

    “Because acute HCV infection acquisition among persons with HIV infection can occur, especially among MSM, and regular screening of those with HIV is cost-effective (238,239,1377), periodic HCV screening should be conducted (1378–1380).”

    From Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [1377]

    The Methods (Intervention Scenarios; page unavailable) describe annual HCV screening for people who inject drugs, and the Discussion (page unavailable) finds the combined screening, treatment, and prevention intervention cost-effective. The paper does not establish that regular screening of persons with HIV, as a group, is cost-effective. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [53]Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barbosa, C., Fraser, H., Hoerger, T. J., Leib, A., Havens, J. R., Young, A., Kral, A., Page, K., Evans, J., Zibbell, J., Hariri, S., Vellozzi, C., Nerlander, L., Ward, J. W., & Vickerman, P.
Affiliations
  • RTI International (US)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University of Colorado Denver (US)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Grady Health System (US)
Corresponding author
Barbosa, Carolina
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-08-02
Volume
114
Issue
12
Pages
2267-2278
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2959900172
Cited by
48
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (200‐2013‐M‐53964B GS‐10F‐0097L)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Hepatitis C virus research
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
hepatitis C, people who inject drugs, cost-effectiveness, syringe services programs, medication-assisted treatment, HCV screening, direct-acting antivirals, HCV prevention, quality-adjusted life years, Perry County, Kentucky, San Francisco
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Screening Programs, Antiviral Agents, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Hepatitis C, Humans, Kentucky, Rural Population, San Francisco, Urban Population, Substance Abuse, Intravenous, Needle-Exchange Programs, Models, Economic, Opiate Substitution Treatment

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