fax: +44 (0)1179287325
Article first published online: 6 DEC 2011
Copyright © 2011 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
Volume 55, Issue 1, pages 49–57, January 2012
How to Cite
Martin, N. K., Vickerman, P., Miners, A., Foster, G. R., Hutchinson, S. J., Goldberg, D. J. and Hickman, M. (2012), Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus antiviral treatment for injection drug user populations. Hepatology, 55: 49–57. doi: 10.1002/hep.24656
Potential conflict of interest: Dr. Goldberg advises Merck.Dr. Foster consults for, advises, is on the speakers' bureau of, and received grants from Roche, Gilead and Janssen. He consults for and is on the speakers' bureau of Bristol-Myers Squibb. He also consults for GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.
Supported by NCCRCD/NIHR CRDHB, MRC New Investigator Award, Scottish Government Hepatitis C Action Plan.
fax: +44 (0)1179287325
- Issue published online: 21 DEC 2011
- Article first published online: 6 DEC 2011
- Accepted manuscript online: 2 SEP 2011 01:44PM EST
- Manuscript Accepted: 18 AUG 2011
- Manuscript Received: 9 JUN 2011
Injecting drug use is the main risk of hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission in most developed countries. HCV antiviral treatment (peginterferon-α + ribavirin) has been shown to be cost-effective for patients with no reinfection risk. We examined the cost-effectiveness of providing antiviral treatment for injecting drug users (IDUs) as compared with treating ex/non-IDUs or no treatment. A dynamic model of HCV transmission and disease progression was developed, incorporating: a fixed number of antiviral treatments allocated at the mild HCV stage over 10 years, no retreatment after treatment failure, potential reinfection, and three baseline IDU HCV chronic prevalence scenarios (20%, 40%, and 60%). We performed a probabilistic cost-utility analysis estimating long-term costs and outcomes measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) comparing treating IDUs, ex/non-IDUs, or no treatment. Antiviral treatment for IDUs is the most cost-effective option in the 20% and 40% baseline chronic prevalence settings, with ICERs compared with no treatment of £521 and £2,539 per QALY saved, respectively. Treatment of ex/non-IDUs is dominated in these scenarios. At 60% baseline prevalence, treating ex/non-IDUs is slightly more likely to be the more cost-effective option (with an ICER compared with no treatment of £6,803), and treating IDUs dominated due to high reinfection. A sensitivity analysis indicates these rankings hold even when IDU sustained viral response rates as compared with ex/non-IDUs are halved. Conclusion: Despite the possibility of reinfection, the model suggests providing antiviral treatment to IDUs is the most cost-effective policy option in chronic prevalence scenarios less than 60%. Further research on how HCV treatment for injectors can be scaled up and its impact on prevalence is warranted. (HEPATOLOGY 2012)