Cost-effectiveness of Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Models for People Who Inject Drugs in Opioid Agonist Treatment Programs.
directly observed therapy
economic evaluation
opioid use disorder
simulation model
viral hepatitis
Journal
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
ISSN: 1537-6591
Titre abrégé: Clin Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9203213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 03 2020
17 03 2020
Historique:
received:
07
12
2018
accepted:
08
05
2019
pubmed:
17
5
2019
medline:
7
1
2021
entrez:
17
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Many people who inject drugs in the United States have chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV). On-site treatment in opiate agonist treatment (OAT) programs addresses HCV treatment barriers, but few evidence-based models exist. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment models for OAT patients using data from a randomized trial conducted in Bronx, New York. We used a decision analytic model to compare self-administered individual treatment (SIT), group treatment (GT), directly observed therapy (DOT), and no intervention for a simulated cohort with the same demographic characteristics of trial participants. We projected long-term outcomes using an established model of HCV disease progression and treatment (hepatitis C cost-effectiveness model: HEP-CE). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are reported in 2016 US$/quality-adjusted life years (QALY), discounted 3% annually, from the healthcare sector and societal perspectives. For those assigned to SIT, we projected 89% would ever achieve a sustained viral response (SVR), with 7.21 QALYs and a $245 500 lifetime cost, compared to 22% achieving SVR, with 5.49 QALYs and a $161 300 lifetime cost, with no intervention. GT was more efficient than SIT, resulting in 0.33 additional QALYs and a $14 100 lower lifetime cost per person, with an ICER of $34 300/QALY, compared to no intervention. DOT was slightly more effective and costly than GT, with an ICER > $100 000/QALY, compared to GT. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, GT and DOT were preferred in 91% of simulations at a threshold of <$100 000/QALY; conclusions were similar from the societal perspective. All models were associated with high rates of achieving SVR, compared to standard care. GT and DOT treatment models should be considered as cost-effective alternatives to SIT.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Many people who inject drugs in the United States have chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV). On-site treatment in opiate agonist treatment (OAT) programs addresses HCV treatment barriers, but few evidence-based models exist.
METHODS
We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment models for OAT patients using data from a randomized trial conducted in Bronx, New York. We used a decision analytic model to compare self-administered individual treatment (SIT), group treatment (GT), directly observed therapy (DOT), and no intervention for a simulated cohort with the same demographic characteristics of trial participants. We projected long-term outcomes using an established model of HCV disease progression and treatment (hepatitis C cost-effectiveness model: HEP-CE). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are reported in 2016 US$/quality-adjusted life years (QALY), discounted 3% annually, from the healthcare sector and societal perspectives.
RESULTS
For those assigned to SIT, we projected 89% would ever achieve a sustained viral response (SVR), with 7.21 QALYs and a $245 500 lifetime cost, compared to 22% achieving SVR, with 5.49 QALYs and a $161 300 lifetime cost, with no intervention. GT was more efficient than SIT, resulting in 0.33 additional QALYs and a $14 100 lower lifetime cost per person, with an ICER of $34 300/QALY, compared to no intervention. DOT was slightly more effective and costly than GT, with an ICER > $100 000/QALY, compared to GT. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, GT and DOT were preferred in 91% of simulations at a threshold of <$100 000/QALY; conclusions were similar from the societal perspective.
CONCLUSIONS
All models were associated with high rates of achieving SVR, compared to standard care. GT and DOT treatment models should be considered as cost-effective alternatives to SIT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31095683
pii: 5490664
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz384
pmc: PMC7318779
doi:
Substances chimiques
Analgesics, Opioid
0
Antiviral Agents
0
Pharmaceutical Preparations
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1397-1405Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : P30 AI042853
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : P30 DA040500
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : R01 DA034086
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
AIDS. 2008 Oct 1;22(15):1979-91
pubmed: 18784461
Gut. 2006 Sep;55(9):1332-8
pubmed: 15994216
Lancet. 1997 Mar 22;349(9055):825-32
pubmed: 9121257
Med Decis Making. 2008 Mar-Apr;28(2):233-42
pubmed: 18349430
J Infect Dis. 2008 Nov 1;198(9):1337-44
pubmed: 18767985
Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Mar;98(3):630-8
pubmed: 12650799
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Mar 4;160(5):293-300
pubmed: 24737271
Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(31):1-122
pubmed: 12583820
Addiction. 2016 Apr;111(4):675-84
pubmed: 26498740
Hepatology. 2001 Oct;34(4 Pt 1):809-16
pubmed: 11584380
Int J Drug Policy. 2015 Feb;26 Suppl 1:S22-6
pubmed: 25245939
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005 Apr;5(2):153-62
pubmed: 19807571
Hepatology. 2008 Aug;48(2):418-31
pubmed: 18563841
Am J Public Health. 2013 Oct;103(10):e81-8
pubmed: 23947319
N Engl J Med. 2014 Aug 28;371(9):796-7
pubmed: 25162885
Lancet. 2011 Aug 13;378(9791):571-83
pubmed: 21802134
J Subst Abuse Treat. 2017 Oct;81:25-34
pubmed: 28847452
Addiction. 2015 Jun;110(6):996-1005
pubmed: 25644938
Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):458-465
pubmed: 28292491
Med Care. 2008 Apr;46(4):349-56
pubmed: 18362813
AIDS. 2009 Oct 23;23(16):2079-89
pubmed: 19710595
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Nov 1;165(9):625-634
pubmed: 27537841
JAMA. 2012 Dec 26;308(24):2584-93
pubmed: 23268517
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Aug;57 Suppl 2:S56-61
pubmed: 23884067
BMC Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 9;18(1):74
pubmed: 29426304
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016 Dec 27;4(1):ofw266
pubmed: 28480259
Ann Intern Med. 2019 May 7;170(9):594-603
pubmed: 30959528
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018 Apr 1;185:411-420
pubmed: 29477574
J Viral Hepat. 2006 Jan;13(1):34-41
pubmed: 16364080
Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 May;104(5):1147-58
pubmed: 19352340
Med Decis Making. 2002 Jan-Feb;22(1):27-38
pubmed: 11833663
Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2011 Nov;6(6):501-7
pubmed: 22001894
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014 Sep;40(6):676-85
pubmed: 25040192