Recognizing the importance of timely guidance regarding the rapidly evolving field of hepatitis C management, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed a web-based process for the expeditious formulation and dissemination of evidence-based recommendations. Launched in 2014, the hepatitis C virus (HCV) guidance website undergoes periodic updates as necessitated by availability of new therapeutic agents and/or research data. A major update was released electronically in September 2017, prompted primarily by approval of new direct-acting antiviral agents and expansion of the guidance's scope. This update summarizes the latest release of the HCV guidance and focuses on new or amended recommendations since the previous September 2015 print publication. The recommendations herein were developed by volunteer hepatology and infectious disease experts representing AASLD and IDSA and have been peer reviewed and approved by each society's governing board.

Rationale: To improve the effectiveness of tuberculosis (TB) control programs in the United States by identifying cost-effective priorities for screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). Objectives: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of LTBI screening using the tuberculin skin test (TST) and interferon-g release assays (IGRAs). Methods: A Markov model of screening for LTBI with TST and IGRA in risk-groups considered in current LTBI screening guidelines. Measurements and Main Results: In all risk-groups, TST and IGRA screening resulted in increased mean life expectancy, ranging from 0.03-0.24 life-months per person screened. IGRA screening resulted in greater life expectancy gains than TST. Screening always cost more than not screening, but IGRA was cost-saving compared with TST in some groups. Four patterns of cost-effectiveness emerged, related to four risk categories. (1) Individuals at highest risk of TB reactivation (close contacts and those infected with HIV): the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of IGRA compared with TST was less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.(2) The foreign-born: IGRA was cost-saving compared with TST and cost-effective compared with no screening (ICER ,$100,000 per QALY gained). (3) Vulnerable populations (e.g., homeless, drug user, or former prisoner): the ICER of TST screening was approximately $100,000-$150,000 per QALY gained, but IGRA was not cost-effective. (4) Medical comorbidities (e.g., diabetes): the ICER of screening with TST or IGRA was greater than $100,000 per QALY. Conclusions: LTBI screening guidelines could make progress toward TB elimination by prioritizing screening for close contacts, those infected with HIV, and the foreign-born regardless of time living in the United States. For these groups, IGRA screening was more costeffective than TST screening.Keywords: latent tuberculosis; cost-effectiveness; tuberculin skin test; interferon-g release assay Reactivation of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) accounts for approximately 70% of cases of active tuberculosis (TB) in the United States (1, 2). Screening and treatment for LTBI is therefore a cornerstone of the strategy for the elimination of TB disease in the United States (3, 4). Previous studies have examined priorities for LTBI screening and treatment, and several have found that isoniazid (INH) therapy for low-risk tuberculin reactors is cost-effective, and even cost-saving in some populations (5-8). These studies, however, used estimates of the prevalence of LTBI and rates of reactivation TB observed in the 1950s and 1960s, and may not reflect current epidemiologic trends (9-11). Furthermore, given the development of interferon-g release assays (IGRA) as a screening test for LTBI, it is important to expand the investigation to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of both tuberculin skin test (TST) and IGRA screening (4). Although prior studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of IGRA, they focused on select risk-groups, and did not prioritize s...

We investigated prescribing patterns for four opioid use disorder (OUD) medications: 1) injectable naltrexone, 2) oral naltrexone, 3) sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone, and 4) sublingual buprenorphine as well as transdermal buprenorphine (which is approved for treating pain, but not OUD) in a nationally representative claims-based database (Truven Health MarketScan®) of commercially insured individuals in the United States. We calculated the prevalence of OUD in the database for each year from 2010 to 2014 and the proportion of diagnosed patient months on OUD medication. We compared characteristics of individuals diagnosed with OUD who did and did not receive these medications with bivariate descriptive statistics. Finally, we fit a Cox proportional hazards model of time to discontinuation of therapy as a function of therapy type, controlling for relevant confounders. From 2010 to 2014, the proportion of commercially insured individuals diagnosed with OUD grew by fourfold (0.12% to 0.48%), but the proportion of diagnosed patient-months on medication decreased from 25% in 2010 (0.05% injectable naltrexone, 0.4% oral naltrexone, 23.1% sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone, 1.5% sublingual buprenorphine, and 0% transdermal buprenorphine) to 16% in 2014 (0.2% injectable naltrexone, 0.4% oral naltrexone, 13.8% sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone, 1.4% sublingual buprenorphine, and 0.3% transdermal buprenorphine). Individuals who received medication therapy were more likely to be male, younger, and have an additional substance use disorder compared with those diagnosed with OUD who did not receive medication therapy. Those prescribed injectable naltrexone were more often male, younger, and diagnosed with additional substance use disorders compared with those prescribed other medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs). At 30 days after initiation, 52% for individuals treated with injectable naltrexone, 70% for individuals treated with oral naltrexone, 31% for individuals treated with sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone, 58% for individuals treated with sublingual buprenorphine, and 51% for individuals treated with transdermal buprenorphine discontinued treatment. In the Cox proportional hazard model, use of injectable naltrexone, oral naltrexone, sublingual buprenorphine, and transdermal buprenorphine were all associated with significantly greater hazard of discontinuing therapy beginning >30days after MOUD initiation (HR=2.17, 2.54, 1.15, and 2.21, respectively, 95% CIs 2.04-2.30, 2.45-2.64, 1.10-1.19, and 2.11-2.33), compared with the use of sublingual or oralmucosal buprenorphine/naloxone. This analysis demonstrates that the use of evidence-based medication therapies has not kept pace with increases in OUD diagnoses in commercially insured populations in the United States. Among those who have been treated, discontinuation rates >30days after initiation are high. The proportion treated with injectable naltrexone, oral naltrexone, and transdermal buprenorphine grew ...