35 We also performed a one-way sensitivity analysis to identify whether specific model assumptions have a large effect on the 40% prevalence scenario analysis, and whether these alter the most cost-effective policy decision. We varied the IDU SVR rate (half or three-quarters of non/ex-IDU SVR), genotype (all genotype

1 or all genotype 2/3), time horizon (extending it to 100 or 200 years), discount rate (0% health discounting), treatment number (5 or 20 treatments per year), treatment duration (5 or 20 years), and treatment delivery this website costs (staff time and test costs required for undertaking treatment, excluding fixed antiviral drug costs) for IDU (equal or double the mean cost for an ex/non-IDU). We also explored a scenario where ex-IDU uninfected utility values are reduced (from 1 to 0.9) and average lifespan for both IDU and ex-IDU is reduced by 7 years (in addition to overdose-related and

other mortality risks during injection). Finally, we examined treatment at a moderate stage instead of a mild stage. Table 4 presents the costs, QALYs, and ICERs for no treatment (best supportive care), antiviral treatment for IDU (10 treatments per 1,000 IDU annually for 10 years), and antiviral treatment for ex/non-IDU (10 treatments annually for 10 years). Results are shown for three baseline chronic HCV prevalence scenarios among IDUs (20%, 40%, and 60%). Treating IDUs is the most cost-effective http://www.selleckchem.com/products/gsk126.html policy option at 20% and 40% chronic

prevalence, with ICERs (compared with no treatment) of £521 and £2,539 per QALY, respectively. Treatment of ex/non-IDUs is dominated by treatment of IDUs at these prevalences (i.e., more costly and less effective). At 60% chronic prevalence, treatment of ex/non-IDUs is slightly more cost-effective than treating IDUs, with an ICER (compared with no treatment) of MCE公司 £6,803 per QALY, in line with previous economic evaluations of HCV treatment for this group.12, 14 The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves in Figs. 1 and 2 show that at 20% and 40% prevalence, treatment of IDUs is the most cost-effective option using the NICE threshold for cost-effective interventions (£20,000-£30,000 per QALY gained). In contrast, at 60% prevalence, Fig. 3 suggests that it is 57%-60% likely that treating ex/non-IDUs is the more cost-effective option, but both options are below the NICE threshold. In all prevalence settings, providing treatment (to IDUs or ex/non-IDUs) results in additional costs and QALYs compared with no treatment (best supportive care), indicating that treatment is unlikely to be cost-saving. This is illustrated in Supporting Figs.