RÉSUMÉ
UNLABELLED: Prisoners have a high prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV), but case-finding may not have been cost-effective because treatment often exceeded average prison stay combined with a lack of continuity of care. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of increased HCV case-finding and treatment in UK prisons using short-course therapies. A dynamic HCV transmission model assesses the cost-effectiveness of doubling HCV case-finding (achieved through introducing opt-out HCV testing in UK pilot prisons) and increasing treatment in UK prisons compared to status quo voluntary risk-based testing (6% prison entrants/year), using currently recommended therapies (8-24 weeks) or interferon (IFN)-free direct-acting antivirals (DAAs; 8-12 weeks, 95% sustained virological response, £3300/week). Costs (British pounds, £) and health utilities (quality-adjusted life years) were used to calculate mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We assumed 56% referral and 2.5%/25% of referred people who inject drugs (PWID)/ex-PWID treated within 2 months of diagnosis in prison. PWID and ex-PWID or non-PWID are in prison an average 4 and 8 months, respectively. Doubling prison testing rates with existing treatments produces a mean ICER of £19,850/quality-adjusted life years gained compared to current testing/treatment and is 45% likely to be cost-effective under a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Switching to 8-week to 12-week IFN-free DAAs in prisons could increase cost-effectiveness (ICER £15,090/quality-adjusted life years gained). Excluding prevention benefit decreases cost-effectiveness. If >10% referred PWID are treated in prison (2.5% base case), either treatment could be highly cost-effective (ICER<£13,000). HCV case-finding and IFN-free DAAs could be highly cost-effective if DAA cost is 10% lower or with 8 weeks' duration. CONCLUSIONS: Increased HCV testing in UK prisons (such as through opt-out testing) is borderline cost-effective compared to status quo voluntary risk-based testing under a £20,000 willingness to pay with current treatments but likely to be cost-effective if short-course IFN-free DAAs are used and could be highly cost-effective if PWID treatment rates were increased. (Hepatology 2016;63:1796-1808).
Sujet(s)
Antiviraux/usage thérapeutique , Hépatite C/économie , Dépistage de masse/économie , Modèles théoriques , Prisonniers , Adolescent , Adulte , Sujet âgé , Analyse coût-bénéfice , Hépatite C/diagnostic , Hépatite C/traitement médicamenteux , Hépatite C/épidémiologie , Humains , Adulte d'âge moyen , Réponse virologique soutenue , Royaume-Uni/épidémiologie , Jeune adulteRÉSUMÉ
BACKGROUND: The burden of hepatitis C (HCV) treatment is growing, as is the political resolve to tackle the epidemic. Primary care will need to work more closely with secondary care to succeed in reducing the prevalence of chronic HCV. AIM: To identify research relating to the provision of antiviral treatment for HCV in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A narrative systematic review of six databases. Method Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched. Relevant journals were searched by hand for articles to be included in the review. Reference lists of relevant papers were reviewed and full-text papers were retrieved for those deemed to potentially fulfil the inclusion criteria of the review. RESULTS: A total of 683 abstracts led to 77 full-text articles being retrieved, of which 16 were finally included in the review. An evidence base emerged, highlighting that community-based antiviral treatment provision is feasible and can result in clinical outcomes comparable to those achieved in hospital outpatient settings. Such provision can be in mainstream general practice, at community addiction centres, or in prisons. GPs must be trained before offering such a service and there is also a need for ongoing specialist supervision of primary care practice. Such training and supervision can be delivered by teleconference, although, even with such ready availability of training and supervision, only a minority of GPs are likely to want to provide antiviral treatment. CONCLUSION: There is emerging evidence supporting the effectiveness of antiviral treatment provision for patients with chronic hepatitis C in a wide variety of primary care and wider community settings. Training and ongoing supervision of primary care practitioners by specialists is a prerequisite. There is an opportunity through future research activity to evaluate typologies of patients who would be best served by primary care-based treatment and those for whom hospital-based outpatient treatment would be most appropriate.