Dataset Information

The hepatitis C cascade of care: identifying priorities to improve clinical outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As highly effective hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies emerge, data are needed to inform the development of interventions to improve HCV treatment rates. We used simulation modeling to estimate the impact of loss to follow-up on HCV treatment outcomes and to identify intervention strategies likely to provide good value for the resources invested in them.

Methods

We used a Monte Carlo state-transition model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of chronically HCV-infected individuals recently screened positive for serum HCV antibody. We simulated four hypothetical intervention strategies (linkage to care; treatment initiation; integrated case management; peer navigator) to improve HCV treatment rates, varying efficacies and costs, and identified strategies that would most likely result in the best value for the resources required for implementation.

Main measures

Sustained virologic responses (SVRs), life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), costs from health system and program implementation perspectives, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results

We estimate that imperfect follow-up reduces the real-world effectiveness of HCV therapies by approximately 75%. In the base case, a modestly effective hypothetical peer navigator program maximized the number of SVRs and QALE, with an ICER compared to the next best intervention of $48,700/quality-adjusted life year. Hypothetical interventions that simultaneously addressed multiple points along the cascade provided better outcomes and more value for money than less costly interventions targeting single steps. The 5-year program cost of the hypothetical peer navigator intervention was $14.5 million per 10,000 newly diagnosed individuals.

Conclusions

We estimate that imperfect follow-up during the HCV cascade of care greatly reduces the real-world effectiveness of HCV therapy. Our mathematical model shows that modestly effective interventions to improve follow-up would likely be cost-effective. Priority should be given to developing and evaluating interventions addressing multiple points along the cascade rather than options focusing solely on single points.

SUBMITTER: Linas BP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4026319 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The hepatitis C cascade of care: identifying priorities to improve clinical outcomes.

Linas Benjamin P BP Barter Devra M DM Leff Jared A JA Assoumou Sabrina A SA Salomon Joshua A JA Weinstein Milton C MC Kim Arthur Y AY Schackman Bruce R BR

PloS one 20140519 5

<h4>Background</h4>As highly effective hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies emerge, data are needed to inform the development of interventions to improve HCV treatment rates. We used simulation modeling to estimate the impact of loss to follow-up on HCV treatment outcomes and to identify intervention strategies likely to provide good value for the resources invested in them.<h4>Methods</h4>We used a Monte Carlo state-transition model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of chronically HCV-infected ind ...[more]

PMID: 24842841

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTuberculosis (TB) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Zambia, especially for people living with HIV (PLHIV). We undertook a care cascade analysis to quantify gaps in care and align programme improvement measures with areas of need.DesignRetrospective, population-based analysis.SettingWe derived national-level estimates for each step of the TB care cascade in Zambia. Estimates were informed by WHO incidence estimates, nationally aggregated laboratory and notification registers, and individual-level programme data from four provinces.ParticipantsParticipants included all individuals with active TB disease in Zambia in 2018. We characterised the overall TB cascade and disaggregated by drug susceptibility results and HIV status.ResultsIn 2018, the total burden of TB in Zambia was estimated to be 72 495 (range, 40 495-111 495) cases. Of these, 43 387 (59.8%) accessed TB testing, 40 176 (55.4%) were diagnosed with TB, 36 431 (50.3%) were started on treatment and 32 700 (45.1%) completed treatment. Among all persons with TB lost at any step along the care cascade (n=39 795), 29 108 (73.1%) were lost prior to accessing diagnostic services, 3211 (8.1%) prior to diagnosis, 3745 (9.4%) prior to initiating treatment and 3731 (9.4%) prior to treatment completion. PLHIV were less likely than HIV-negative individuals to successfully complete the care cascade (42.8% vs 50.2%, p<0.001). Among those with rifampicin-resistant TB, there was substantial attrition at each step of the cascade and only 22.8% were estimated to have successfully completed treatment.ConclusionsLosses throughout the care cascade resulted in a large proportion of individuals with TB not completing treatment. Ongoing health systems strengthening and patient-centred engagement strategies are needed at every step of the care cascade; however, scale-up of active case finding strategies is particularly critical to ensure individuals with TB in the population reach initial stages of care. Additionally, a renewed focus on PLHIV and individuals with drug-resistant TB is urgently needed to improve TB-related outcomes in Zambia.

Project description:BackgroundThe failure to retain patients or collect primary-outcome data is a common challenge for trials and reduces the statistical power and potentially introduces bias into the analysis. Identifying strategies to minimise missing data was the second highest methodological research priority in a Delphi survey of the Directors of UK Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and is important to minimise waste in research. Our aim was to assess the current retention practices within the UK and priorities for future research to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to reduce attrition.MethodsSeventy-five chief investigators of NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trials starting between 2009 and 2012 were surveyed to elicit their awareness about causes of missing data within their trial and recommended practices for improving retention. Forty-seven CTUs registered within the UKCRC network were surveyed separately to identify approaches and strategies being used to mitigate missing data across trials. Responses from the current practice surveys were used to inform a subsequent two-round Delphi survey with registered CTUs. A consensus list of retention research strategies was produced and ranked by priority.ResultsFifty out of seventy-five (67%) chief investigators and 33/47 (70%) registered CTUs completed the current practice surveys. Seventy-eight percent of trialists were aware of retention challenges and implemented strategies at trial design. Patient-initiated withdrawal was the most common cause of missing data. Registered CTUs routinely used newsletters, timeline of participant visits, and telephone reminders to mitigate missing data. Whilst 36 out of 59 strategies presented had been formally or informally evaluated, some frequently used strategies, such as site initiation training, have had no research to inform practice. Thirty-five registered CTUs (74%) participated in the Delphi survey. Research into the effectiveness of site initiation training, frequency of patient contact during a trial, the use of routinely collected data, the frequency and timing of reminders, triggered site training and the time needed to complete questionnaires was deemed critical. Research into the effectiveness of Christmas cards for site staff was not of critical importance.ConclusionThe surveys of current practices demonstrates that a variety of strategies are being used to mitigate missing data but with little evidence to support their use. Six retention strategies were deemed critically important within the Delphi survey and should be a primary focus of future retention research.

Project description:Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research may contribute to obtaining answers that clinicians perceive they need and may minimize research that could be considered wasteful. Our objective was to identify evidence gaps and set priorities for new systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials for managing diabetic retinopathy (DR), including diabetic macular edema (DME).Cross-sectional study.Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) investigators.We provided recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2012 Preferred Practice Patterns for Diabetic Retinopathy as 91 answerable clinical research questions about intervention effectiveness to 410 DRCR.net investigators to rate each question's importance from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important) using a 2-round Delphi survey and to suggest additional questions. We considered questions as high priority if at least 75% of respondents to both rounds assigned an importance rating of 5 or more in round 2. We also extracted outcome measures relevant to DR and asked respondents to identify those that must be measured in all studies. We mapped Cochrane reviews published up to March 2016 to high-priority clinical research questions.Ranking of importance of each clinical question.Thirty-two individuals completed rounds 1 and 2 and suggested 15 questions. Among the final list of 106 clinical research questions, 22 questions met our definition of high priority: 9 of 22 concerned the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy, and 13 of 22 focused on how often patients should be followed up (re-examination) and treatment effectiveness in patients with specific characteristics (e.g., DME). Outcomes that 75% or more of respondents marked as "must be measured in all studies" included visual acuity and visual loss, death of participants, and intraocular pressure. Only 1 prioritized question was associated with conclusive evidence from a Cochrane systematic review.A limited response rate among DRCR.net members identified 22 comparative effectiveness research questions as high priority for the management of DR, including DME, but few were associated with Cochrane reviews. These results support the need of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials to address evidence gaps.

Dataset Information

The hepatitis C cascade of care: identifying priorities to improve clinical outcomes.

Background

Methods

Main measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The hepatitis C cascade of care: identifying priorities to improve clinical outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets