Abstract
Background
Elimination targets for hepatitis C have been set across the world. In the UK almost 90% of infections are in people who inject drugs. Evidence shows community case-finding is effective at identifying and treating undiagnosed patients. The aim of this analysis was to assess, from a healthcare provider perspective, the cost-effectiveness of a new pharmacist-led test and treat pathway for hepatitis C in opioid agonist treatment (OAT) patients attending community pharmacies compared to conventional care.
Methods
In a cluster randomised controlled trial, pharmacies were randomised to the pharmacist-led or conventional care pathway. Mean cost per OAT patient and per patient initiating treatment was identified for each pathway. A Markov model tracking disease progression was developed, with a 50-year time horizon and 3·5% time discount rate, to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and the probability of being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed for a range of drug discounts, re-infection rates, and model assumptions.
Findings
Mean cost per OAT patient (£3,674 vs £1,965) and per patient initiating treatment (£863 vs £404) was higher in the pharmacist-led pathway, due to higher uptake of testing and pharmacist time requirements. Over a 50-year time horizon the ICER per QALY gained was £31,612 at NHS indicative price for treatment (£38,979 for 12 weeks) and 12·1/100 person-years re-infection rate, reducing to £21,027/£10,220/-£501 per QALY gained with 30%/60%/90% drug price discounts and £25,373/£21,738/£14,912 per QALY gained at re-infection rates of 8/5/2 per 100 person-years. At 30%/60%/90% drug discount rates, the pharmacist-led pathway has an 80%/98%/100% probability of being cost-effective.
Interpretation
The pharmacist-led pathway is effective at increasing testing and treatment uptake, with cost-effectiveness being highly dependent on drug price discounts.
Elimination targets for hepatitis C have been set across the world. In the UK almost 90% of infections are in people who inject drugs. Evidence shows community case-finding is effective at identifying and treating undiagnosed patients. The aim of this analysis was to assess, from a healthcare provider perspective, the cost-effectiveness of a new pharmacist-led test and treat pathway for hepatitis C in opioid agonist treatment (OAT) patients attending community pharmacies compared to conventional care.
Methods
In a cluster randomised controlled trial, pharmacies were randomised to the pharmacist-led or conventional care pathway. Mean cost per OAT patient and per patient initiating treatment was identified for each pathway. A Markov model tracking disease progression was developed, with a 50-year time horizon and 3·5% time discount rate, to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and the probability of being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed for a range of drug discounts, re-infection rates, and model assumptions.
Findings
Mean cost per OAT patient (£3,674 vs £1,965) and per patient initiating treatment (£863 vs £404) was higher in the pharmacist-led pathway, due to higher uptake of testing and pharmacist time requirements. Over a 50-year time horizon the ICER per QALY gained was £31,612 at NHS indicative price for treatment (£38,979 for 12 weeks) and 12·1/100 person-years re-infection rate, reducing to £21,027/£10,220/-£501 per QALY gained with 30%/60%/90% drug price discounts and £25,373/£21,738/£14,912 per QALY gained at re-infection rates of 8/5/2 per 100 person-years. At 30%/60%/90% drug discount rates, the pharmacist-led pathway has an 80%/98%/100% probability of being cost-effective.
Interpretation
The pharmacist-led pathway is effective at increasing testing and treatment uptake, with cost-effectiveness being highly dependent on drug price discounts.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 676-682 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Journal of Infection |
| Volume | 85 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Early online date | 25 Sept 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Dec 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:GM and HM are funded, and WH partly funded, by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West). AGL and PV acknowledge support from the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022
Research Groups and Themes
- HEHP@Bristol
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Elsevier at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2022.09.021. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.