Drug therapies for chronic hepatitis C infection: a cost-effectiveness analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Before 2011, pegylated interferon plus ribavirin was the standard therapy for chronic hepatitis C. Interferon-free direct-acting antiviral agents were then approved. Although these treatments appear to be more effective, they are substantially more expensive. In anticipation of the need for information regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of new regimens in a recent therapeutic review, we conducted the analysis to inform listing decision in Canada. METHODS: A state-transition model was developed in the form of a cost-utility analysis. Regimens included in the analysis were comprehensive. The cohort under consideration had a mean age of 50 years. The cohort was defined by treatment status and cirrhosis status. Inputs for the model were derived from published sources and validated by clinical experts. RESULTS: For each genotype 1 population, at least 1 of the interferon-free agents appeared to be economically attractive compared with pegylated interferon-ribavirin, at a willingness-to-pay of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. The drug that was the most cost-effective varied by population. For genotype 2-4 population, the direct-acting antiviral therapies appeared not to be economically attractive compared with pegylated interferon-ribavirin for the treatment-naive; however, there were direct-acting antiviral therapies that appeared to be attractive when compared with no treatment for the treatment-experienced. INTERPRETATION: Public health policy should be informed by consideration of health benefit, social and ethical values, feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Our analysis assists the development of reimbursements and policies for interferon-free direct-acting antiviral agent regimens for chronic hepatitis C infection by informing the last criterion. Considering the rapid development of treatments for chronic hepatitis C, further update and expanded reviews will be necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".