Volume 28, Issue 4 pp. 707-716
Hepatology

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of treating chronic hepatitis C virus in people who inject drugs in Australia

Adam J Visconti

Corresponding Author

Adam J Visconti

School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

The Centre of Excellence in Intervention and Prevention Science, Carlton South

Correspondence

Mr Adam J Visconti, School of Medicine, University of California, MS-3, 513 Parnassus Avenue, Room S-245, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA. Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Joseph S Doyle

Joseph S Doyle

Infectious Diseases Unit, The Alfred

Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Amanda Weir

Amanda Weir

Centre for Population Health, Burnet Institute

Search for more papers by this author
Alan M Shiell

Alan M Shiell

The Centre of Excellence in Intervention and Prevention Science, Carlton South

Search for more papers by this author
Margaret E Hellard

Margaret E Hellard

Centre for Population Health, Burnet Institute

Infectious Diseases Unit, The Alfred

Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 22 November 2012
Citations: 25

Abstract

Background and Aim

To assess the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus treatment with pegylated interferon alfa-2a and ribavirin in current and former people who inject drugs (PWID).

Methods

A decision analytic model simulated the lifetime costs and outcomes of four treatment options: early treatment with mild fibrosis, standard treatment with moderate fibrosis, late treatment with compensated cirrhosis, and no treatment. Treatment modalities were simulated across current, former, and never-injector cohorts of 1000 hypothetical patients with chronic hepatitis C virus. The main outcome measures were incremental costs ($AUD) per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each cohort.

Results

Treatment of current PWID during mild fibrosis resulted in a discounted average gain of 1.60 QALYs (95% confidence interval 0.93–2.26) for an added cost of $12 723 ($11 153–$14 396) compared with no treatment, yielding an ICER of $7941 per QALY gained ($6347–$12 017). Former PWID gained 1.80 QALYs (1.29–2.33) for $10 441 ($8843–$12 074) for early treatment compared with no treatment, resulting in an ICER of $5808 per QALY gained ($5189–$6849). Never-injectors gained 2.33 QALYs (1.87–2.80) for $9290 ($7642–$10 912) compared with no treatment—an ICER of $3985 per QALY gained ($3896–$4080). Early treatment was more cost-effective than late treatment in all cohorts.

Conclusions

Despite comorbidities, increased mortality, and reduced adherence, treatment of both current and former PWID is cost-effective. Our estimates fall below the unofficial Australian cost-effectiveness threshold of $AUD 50 000 per QALY for public subsidies. Scaling up treatment for PWID can be justified on purely economic grounds.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.