Trials describing 4-to 12-week courses of direct-acting antiviral drugs (DAAs) to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission from infected donors to uninfected kidney transplant recipients (D+/R− transplants) may be limited in "real-world" application by costs and delayed access to DAAs. We previously reported HCV transmission of 13% among D+/R− transplants with 2-to 4-day pangenotypic sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) perioperative prophylaxis, where one patient with HCV transmission was a nonresponder to first-line full-course DAA. Here, we report new data with a 7day prophylaxis protocol (N = 50), as well as cumulative treatment and outcome data on all HCV D+/R− transplants (N = 102). Overall, nine patients (9/102; 9%; 95% CI: 5%-16%) developed HCV transmission, with a significant decline noted in the 7-day group (2/50; 4%; 95% CI: 0%-13%) compared with 2-to 4-day prophylaxis (7/52; 13%; 95% CI: 5%-25%). All patients with HCV transmission achieved sustained virologic response post full-course therapy (including one nonresponder from initial trial). A 1:1 matched analysis (N = 102) with contemporary HCV D−/R− transplants (controls) showed that although the pretransplant wait time was significantly shorter for D+/ R− compared with D−/R− (mean: 1.8 vs. 4.4 years; p < .001), there were no differences in infections, rejection, development of de novo donor-specific antibody, or transplant outcomes up to 6 months of transplant.
BACKGROUND:The hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence rate among injection drug users (IDUs) in North America is 55.2%, with 1.41 million individuals estimated to be HCVantibody positive. Studies have shown the effectiveness of syringe service programs (SSPs) alone, medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) alone, or SSP+MOUD combination in reducing HCV transmission among opioid IDUs.
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SSP alone, MOUD alone, and SSP + MOUD combination in preventing HCV cases among opioid IDUs in the United States.
METHODS:We used a decision tree analysis model based on published literature and publicly available data. Effectiveness was presented as the number of HCV cases avoided per 100 opioid IDUs. A micro-costing approach was undertaken and included both direct medical and nonmedical costs. Costeffectiveness was assessed from a public payer perspective over a 1-year time horizon. It was expressed as an incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) and an incremental cost savings per HCV case avoided per 100 opioid IDUs compared with cost savings with "no intervention." Costs were standardized to 2019 U.S. dollars.
BACKGROUND: Among the different drugs involved in pediatric exposures and poisonings, opioids are the most important, given their rise in nonmedical use. Opioid poisonings in children can result in serious symptoms or complications, including respiratory disorders such as apnea, respiratory failure, and respiratory depression; psychi-atric or nervous system disorders such as agitation, seizures, and coma; and cardiac disorders such as tachycardia, bradycardia, and cardiac arrest. Opioid poisonings in children can have delayed onset of symptoms as well as severe and prolonged toxic effects. Many studies have examined the economic burden of opioid poisoning in the general population, but very little is known about the pediatric population.
OBJECTIVE:To estimate the economic burden associated with pediatric prescription opioid poisonings.
METHODS:This study examined opioid poisonings in pediatric patients, defined as patients aged less than 18 years, for the 2012 base year. Costs were estimated using the 2012 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), Kids' Inpatient Database (KID), Multiple Cause-of-Death (MCOD) file,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.