Document Detail


Cost effectiveness of hepatitis C-related interventions targeting substance users and other high-risk groups: a systematic review.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23050771     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Data-Review    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
Background and Objective: In developed countries, injection drug users have the highest prevalence and incidence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Clinicians and policy makers have several options for reducing morbidity and mortality related to HCV infection, including preventing new infections, screening high-risk populations, and optimizing uptake and delivery of antiviral therapy. Cost-effectiveness analyses provide an estimate of the value for money associated with adopting healthcare interventions. Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of hepatitis C interventions (prevention, screening, treatment) targeting substance users and other groups with a high proportion of substance users. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HealthSTAR and EconLit, and the grey literature. Studies were critically appraised using the Drummond and Jefferson, Neumann et al. and Philips et al. checklists. We developed and applied a quality appraisal instrument specific to cost-effectiveness analyses of HCV interventions. In addition, we summarized cost-effectiveness estimates using a single currency and year ($US, year 2009 values). Results: Twenty-one economic evaluations were included, which addressed prevention (three), screening (ten) and treatment (eight). The quality of the analyses varied greatly. A significant proportion did not incorporate important aspects of HCV natural history, disease costs and antiviral therapy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (less costly and more effective) to $US603 352 per QALY. However, many ICERs were less than $US100 000 per QALY. Screening and treatment interventions involving pegylated interferon and ribavirin were generally cost effective at the $US100 000 per QALY threshold, with the exception of some subgroups, such as immune compromised patients with genotype 1 infections. Conclusions: No clear consensus emerged from the studies demonstrating that prevention, screening or treatment provides better value for money as each approach can be economically attractive in certain subgroups. More high-quality economic evaluations of preventing, identifying and treating HCV infection in substance users are needed.
Authors:
Ava John-Baptiste; Man Wah Yeung; Victoria Leung; Gabrielle van der Velde; Murray Krahn
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  PharmacoEconomics     Volume:  30     ISSN:  1179-2027     ISO Abbreviation:  Pharmacoeconomics     Publication Date:  2012 Nov 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-10-11     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9212404     Medline TA:  Pharmacoeconomics     Country:  New Zealand    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  1015-34     Citation Subset:  T    
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Memory and Executive Screening (MES): a brief cognitive test for detecting mild cognitive impairment...
Next Document:  Acinetobacter baumannii FolD ligand complexes --potent inhibitors of folate metabolism and a re-eval...