OBJECTIVE: To assist with achieving these goals and to inform the development of a national strategic plan for Malaysia, we estimated the long-term burden incurred by the care and management of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We compared cumulative healthcare costs and disease burden under different treatment cascade scenarios.
METHODS: We attached direct costs for the management/care of chronically HCV-infected patients to a previously developed clinical disease progression model. Under assumptions regarding disease stage-specific proportions of model-predicted HCV patients within care, annual numbers of patients initiated on antiviral treatment and distribution of treatments over stage, we projected the healthcare costs and disease burden [in disability-adjusted life-years (DALY)] in 2018-2040 under four treatment scenarios: (A) no treatment/baseline; (B) pre-2018 standard of care (pegylated interferon/ribavirin); (C) gradual scale-up in direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment uptake that does not meet the WHO 2030 treatment uptake target; (D) scale-up in DAA treatment uptake that meets the WHO 2030 target.
RESULTS: Scenario D, while achieving the WHO 2030 target and averting 253,500 DALYs compared with the pre-2018 standard of care B, incurred the highest direct patient costs over the period 2018-2030: US$890 million (95% uncertainty interval 653-1271). When including screening programme costs, the total cost was estimated at US$952 million, which was 12% higher than the estimated total cost of scenario C.
CONCLUSIONS: The scale-up to meet the WHO 2030 target may be achievable with appropriately high governmental commitment to the expansion of HCV screening to bring sufficient undiagnosed chronically infected patients into the treatment pathway.
MAIN TEXT: To overcome these barriers, stakeholders will need to design policies and work in ways that provide an enabling environment for innovative products and services. Inherently about people, the incorporation of community engagement approaches is necessary for both the development of social innovations and accompanying research methodologies. Whilst the 'appropriate' level of participation is linked to intended outcomes, researchers have a role to play in better understanding how to harness the power of community engagement and to ensure that community perspectives form part of the evidence base that informs policy and practice.
CONCLUSIONS: To effectively operate at the intersection between policy, social innovation, and research, all collaborators need to enter the process with the mindset of learners, rather than experts. Methods - quantitative and qualitative - must be selected according to research questions. The fields of implementation research, community-based participatory research, and realist research, amongst others, have much to offer. So do other sectors, notably education and business. In all this, researchers must assume the mantel of responsibility for research and not transfer the onus to communities under the guise of participation. By leveraging the expertise and knowledge of different ecosystem actors, we can design responsive health systems that integrate innovative approaches in ways that are greater than the sum of their parts.