Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir in hepatitis C genotype 1 infection in Germany: A reanalysis of published results.

OBJECTIVES: Recently, the results of two economic evaluations were published both of which seemingly demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based regimens for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 infection in Germany. Both analyses were sponsored by the manufacturer of sofosbuvir and use a different methodology: Whereas one evaluation is based on a conventional cost-utility analysis, the other rests upon the efficiency-frontier method used by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). The purpose of this study is to reanalysis the results of both economic evaluations in combination. DESIGN: Reanalysis of published decision modelling results. SETTING: Primary care in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 infection (treatment-naïve and -experienced, cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic). INTERVENTIONS: Sofosbuvir, other anti-hepatitis C virus drugs, and no treatment. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per unit of health benefit and cost per quality-adjusted life year. RESULTS: Reanalysis of the results of both economic evaluations in combination reveals an unclear rationale for choosing the selected cost-effectiveness methods as well as a potential publication bias, favoring the product of the manufacturer. Based on the reanalysis, sofosbuvir is not cost-effective in treatment-experienced non-cirrhotic patients, potentially lacks cost-effectiveness in treatment-experienced cirrhotic patients, and is only partially cost-effective in treatment-naïve non-cirrhotic patients. Taken together, these results indicate a lack of cost-effectiveness in three quarters of the German patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Two economic evaluations on sofosbuvir suggest, in combination, that sofosbuvir cannot be considered a cost-effective treatment in three quarters of the German patient population.

Cost-effectiveness of Oral Regimens for Adolescents With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection.

BACKGROUND: Novel oral regimes have been approved for treating hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in adolescents due to their superior effectiveness and safety. However, its economic outcome is still unclear in this population. The current analysis investigates the cost-effectiveness of novel oral regimens compared with that of pegylated interferon α with ribavirin (PR) therapies in adolescents in the context of the United States and China. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to measure the economic and health outcomes of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LS) for genotypes 1 and 4, sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SR) for genotype 2, and ledipasvir/sofosbuvir/ribavirin (LSR) for genotype 3 HCV infection compared with the outcomes of PR treatment. Clinical costs and utility inputs were gathered from published sources. Lifetime discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured. The uncertainty was facilitated by 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the United States, the ICERs of LS strategy were $14,699 and $14,946/QALY for genotypes 1 and 4 HCV infection, respectively; the ICER of SR strategy for genotype 2 was $42,472/QALY; and the ICER of LSR for genotype 3 was $49,409/QALY in comparison with the PR strategy. In Chinese adolescents, LS for genotypes 1 and 4, SR for genotype 2, and LSR for genotype 3 were the dominant alternatives to the PR strategy. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Novel oral regimes for adolescents with HCV infection are likely to be cost-effective in the context of the United States and China.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir With or Without Ribavirin Regimen for Patients Infected With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 in Malaysia.

OBJECTIVES: The combination of pegylated-interferon and ribavirin (PegIFN+RBV) is currently the gold standard in treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients in Malaysia and is reimbursed by the Malaysian authorities. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV) regimen as compared with the PegIFN+RBV or no treatment in chronic HCV Genotype 1 (GT1) treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients in Malaysia. METHODS: A Markov model based on previously published CE models of HCV was adapted for the Malaysian public healthcare payer perspective, based on good modeling practices. Treatment attributes included efficacy, regimen duration, and EQ-5D treatment-related health utility. Transitional probabilities and health state health utilities were derived from previous studies. Costs were derived from Malaysian data sources. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.0% per year. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainties around key variables. RESULTS: Based on the analysis, patients treated with the OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV showed less frequent progression to compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related deaths when compared with standard care (ie, PegIFN+RBV or no treatment). At a price of MYR 1846/day, the OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV regimen is cost-effective over PegIFN+RBV and yields better outcomes in terms of life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a higher cost, which is still well below the implied willingness to pay threshold of MYR 384 503/QALY. CONCLUSION: The OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV regimen is cost-effective for treatment naïve, treatment experienced, cirrhotic, and noncirrhotic GT1 chronic HCV patients in Malaysia.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir Versus Existing Direct-Acting Antivirals to Treat Chronic Hepatitis C in Japan.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir versus other direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in Japan. METHODS: We developed a health state transition model to capture the natural history of HCV. A cost-effectiveness analysis of DAAs from the perspective of a public healthcare payer in Japan with a lifetime horizon over annual cycles was performed. Treatment attributes, baseline demographics, transition probabilities, health-state utilities, and costs data were extracted from publications. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 2% per annum. In the base case we focused on genotype 1 (GT1) treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis. The scenario analysis examined a pan-genotype treatment in GT1-3 (i.e., portfolio), treatment-naïve, and treatment-experienced patients. The portfolio cost-effectiveness of DAAs was derived by calculating a weighted average of patient segments defined by treatment history, cirrhosis status, and genotype. RESULTS: The base case results indicated that glecaprevir/pibrentasvir was dominant (i.e., generating higher quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] and lower lifetime costs) compared to all other DAAs. The predicted lifetime risk of hepatocellular carcinoma was 3.66% for glecaprevir/pibrentasvir and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, 4.99% for elbasvir/grazoprevir, and 5.27% for daclatasvir/asunaprevir/beclabuvir. In scenario analysis the glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) portfolio dominated the sofosbuvir (SOF)-based portfolio (namely sofosbuvir/ledipasvir in GT1-2 and sofosbuvir + ribavirin in GT3). The base case probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that glecaprevir/pibrentasvir was cost-effective in 93.4% of the simulations for a willingness-to-pay/QALY range of Japanese yen (JPY) 1.6-20 million. The PSA for the portfolio scenario indicated that the GLE/PIB portfolio was cost-effective in 100% of simulations until the willingness-to-pay/QALY reached JPY 5.2 million; this proportion decreased to 69.4% at a willingness-to-pay/QALY of JPY 20 million. Results were also robust in deterministic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In GT1 treatment-naïve non-cirrhotic patients GLE/PIB was a cost-effective strategy compared to other DAAs. When a pan-genotypic framework was used, the GLE/PIB portfolio dominated the SOF-based portfolio.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in patients with genotype 2 chronic hepatitis C: an analysis with real world outcomes from a multicentre cohort in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: A number of publications have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin (SOF+RBV) compared with the former standard therapy with interferon (IFN)-containing regimens. Unlike these cost-effective analyses, where efficacy parameters were obtained from registration trials for drug approval, this analysis is a cost-effectiveness analysis of SOF+RBV for genotype (GT) 2 non-cirrhosis (NC) and compensated cirrhosis (CC) patients using efficacy parameters obtained from a multicentre cohort study (Kyushu University Liver Disease Study; KULDS) in Kyushu area in Japan in order to reflect real-world clinical practice in Japan. METHOD: A Markov model followed 10 000 patients (62 years old) over their lifetime. Four populations were followed: treatment-naïve (TN)-NC, treatment-experienced (TE)-NC, TN-CC and TE-CC. Comparators were Peg-IFNα2b+RBV for TN-NC and CC patients and telaprevir (TVR)+Peg-IFNα2b+RBV for TE-NC patients. The sustained virological response (SVR) rates of SOF+RBV were taken from KULDS and those of comparators were obtained from systematic literature reviews. There were nine states (NC, CC, decompensated cirrhosis [DC], hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], SVR [NC], SVR [CC], liver transplantation [LT], post-LT and death) in this model, and an increase in the progression rate to HCC due to ageing was also considered. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of a public healthcare payer, and a discount rate of 2% was set for both cost and effectiveness. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of SOF+RBV versus Peg-IFNα2b+RBV were ¥323 928 /quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for TN-NC patients, ¥92 256/QALY for TN-CC patients and ¥1 519 202/QALY for TE-CC patients. The ICER of SOF+RBV versus TVR+Peg-IFNα2b+RBV was ¥849 138/QALY for TE-NC patients. The robustness of the results was determined by sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis strongly demonstrate the robustness of our previous findings that SOF+RBV regimens are cost-effective in the real world and clinical trial settings for Japanese GT2 NC and CC patients.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Triple Therapy With Telaprevir and Boceprevir for Chronic Hepatitis C: A Decision Analysis From the Brazilian Public Health System Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Because of the lack of evidence regarding long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-generation direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treatment in Brazil, we performed a cost-utility analysis comparing standard dual therapy (peginterferon plus ribavirin [pegIFN/RBV]), boceprevir, and telaprevir for CHC patients. METHODS: We developed a state-transition Markov model simulating the progression of CHC. Long-term outcomes included remaining life expectancy in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Short-term outcomes included sustained virological response rates (SVR). Direct medical costs were obtained from Brazilian databases. A lifelong time horizon was considered and a 5% annual discount rate was applied for costs and clinical outcomes. A willingness-to-pay threshold of approximately $20 000 per QALY was used. We performed multiple sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: For short- and long-term scenarios, therapy with boceprevir was dominated by telaprevir, which was more effective than standard dual therapy (75.0% vs 40.4% SVR rate, 13.47 vs 12.59 LYs, and 9.74 vs 8.49 QALYs, respectively) and was also more expensive ($15 742 vs $5413). The corresponding ICERs were $29 854/SVR, $11 803/LY, and $8277/QALY. Based on our model, triple therapy with telaprevir was the most cost-effective treatment for the Brazilian health system. Despite a lack of data regarding the Brazilian population, we incorporated as many applicable parameters as possible. CONCLUSIONS: Telaprevir is more effective and cost-effective than boceprevir. Our model may be applied for other settings with a few adjustments in the input parameters.

Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin therapy for hepatitis C virus genotype 2 infection in South Korea.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: For genotype 2 chronic hepatitis C (CHC), the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin therapy (SOF + RBV) was better than pegylated interferon plus ribavirin therapy (PR) at a greater drug cost. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of SOF + RBV compared with PR for treatment-naïve genotype 2 CHC in South Korea. METHODS: Using a decision analytic Markov model, a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SOF + RBV with PR or no treatment for treatment-naïve genotype 2 CHC was performed with probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses from the payer's perspective in 2017. Three cohorts of patients aged 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 years were simulated to progress through the fibrosis stages F0-F4 to end-stage liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma, or death. Published and calculated data on the clinical efficacy of the regimen, health-related quality of life, costs, and transition probabilities were used. RESULTS: While the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PR was dominant over no treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for SOF + RBV were $20 058 for the patients in their 40s, $19 662 for those in their 50s, and $22 278 for those in their 60s compared with PR. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated an 89.0% probability for the SOF + RBV to be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $29 754.4 (per-capita gross domestic product in 2017) for the patients in their 40s and 94.1% and 89.1% for the patients in their 50s and 60s, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The SOF + RBV is a cost-effective option for genotype 2 treatment-naïve CHC patients, especially for the patients with liver cirrhosis in Korea.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of peginterferon plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C treatment and direct-acting antiviral agents among HIV-infected patients in the prison and community settings.

BACKGROUND: In Taiwan, the majority of chronic hepatitis C carriers with HIV co-infection are intravenous drug users and inmates in correctional facilities. Peginterferon and ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV) have been the standard-of-care for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection more than decades. We evaluated the estimated cost-effectiveness of PegIFN/RBV from the National Health Insurance Research Database, covering the population of Taiwan from 1998 to 2013. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an observational study, and study during was 2010-2016 and a total of 239 patients were treated with PegIFN/RBV. Of them, 156 patients were treated in the correctional facilities of Taipei, Taoyuan, Taichung and Taitung prisons, and 83 patients were treated in communities. The cost-effectiveness was analyzed in regimens of PegIFN/RBV and direct-acting antiviral agents. RESULTS: By multivariate analysis, the patients completed PegIFN/RBV in prison (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 4.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.58-13.12, p = 0.005), HCV RNA level <800,000 IU/mL (aOR: 4.0, 95% CI: 1.27-12.66, p = 0.02) at baseline, and the presence of early virologic response (EVR) (aOR: 7.67, 95% CI: 1.89-31.06, p = 0.004) were independent predictors for sustained virologic response (SVR). For the subgroups of prisoners, HIV-infected prisoners and HIV-infected patients in communities, the SVR rate was 73.8%, 72.0% and 36.8%, and the average medical-care cost was US$7,701, $7,893, and $15,443 per SVR achieved, respectively. Also, the estimated medical-care cost for genotype 6 was US$9211. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic HCV/HIV co-infected patients with genotype 1 and 6 in the community setting could benefit from DAAs in Taiwan.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of treatment of patients infected with hepatitis C virus.

Hepatitis C infection imposes a high economic burden globally. It has been estimated that in 2012, the healthcare cost of Hepatitis C virus (HCV) was $6.5 billion. Furthermore, it has been projected that the cost will reach at $9.1 billion by the year 2024.Frequency of hepatitis C in Pakistan is significantly higher (4.5%) when compared to the populations like India (0.7%), Nepal (1.0), Myanmar (2.5%), Iran (0.8%), China (1%) and Afghanistan (1.1%). The current standard of care for chronic infection with hepatitis C virus is 24 or 48 weeks of therapy with Pegylated interferon-alfa-2a (Peg INF) +Ribavirin (RV) or Interferon alfa-2a (INF) + RV. The objective of this study was to determine that which combination is more effective and the gain in sustained virologic response (SVR) is worth the incremental cost. In total 84 patients were enrolled who received current standard treatment of care for chronic infection with HCV either 24 or 48 weeks of therapy with Peg INF + RV or INF + RV. A pharmacoeconomic analysis was done including fixed and variable cost (comprising concomitant therapies, emergency visits and hospital admissions) of both treatment regimens were calculated and compared with the SVR accomplished by the patients. It was concluded that the Peg INF + RV is cost effective as compared with conventional INF + RV for the treatment of adult patients infected with HCV genotype 3a under a varied array of possibilities regarding treatment costs and effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus asunaprevir for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1b treatment-naïve patients in China.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C is the second fastest growing infectious disease in China. The standard-of-care for chronic hepatitis C in China is Pegylated interferon plus ribavirin (PR), which is associated with tolerability and efficacy issues. An interferon- and ribavirin-free, all-oral regimen comprising daclatasvir (DCV) and asunaprevir (ASV), which displays higher efficacy and tolerability, has recently been approved in China. OBJECTIVES: This study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of DCV+ASV (24 weeks) for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1b treatment-naïve patients compared with PR regimen (48 weeks) in China. METHODS: A cohort-based Markov model was developed from Chinese payer perspective to project the lifetime outcomes of treating 10,000 patients with an average age of 44.5 with two hypothetical regimens, DCV+ASV and PR. Chinese-specific health state costs and efficacy data were used. The annual discount rate was 5%. Base-case analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: For HCV Genotype 1b treatment-naïve patients, DCV+ASV proved to be dominant over PR, with a cost saving of ¥33,480(5,096 USD) and gains in QALYs and life years of 1.29 and 0.85, respectively. The lifetime risk of compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related death was greatly reduced with DCV+ASV. Univariate sensitivity analysis demonstrated that key influencers were the discount rate, time horizon, initial disease severity and sustained virological response rate of DCV+ASV, with all scenarios resulting in additional benefit. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that DCV+ASV has a high likelihood (100%) of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: DCV+ASV is not only an effective and well-tolerated regimen to treat chronic HCV genotype 1b infection treatment-naïve patients, but also is more cost-effective than PR regimen. DCV+ASV can benefit both the public health and reimbursement system in China.

Economic evaluation of Zepatier for the management of HCV in the Italian scenario.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a major health issue worldwide. New generation of direct-active antiviral medications is an epoch-making turning point in the management of HCV infections. OBJECTIVE: Conducing a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the combination of elbasvir/grazoprevir and sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin for the management of all HCV patients (even those in the initial stages of fibrosis). METHODS: A Markov model was built on the natural history of the disease to assess the efficacy of the alternatives. The outcomes are expressed in terms of quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and result in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). RESULTS: Elbasvir/grazoprevir implies an expenditure of €21,104,253.74 with a gain of 19,287.90 QALYs and sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin implies an expenditure of €31,904,410.11 with a gain of 18,855.96 QALYs. Elbasvir/grazoprevir is thus a dominant strategy. CONCLUSION: Consideration should be given to the opportunity cost of not treating patients with a lower degree of fibrosis (F0-F2).

Economic Evaluation of Direct-Acting Antivirals for Hepatitis C in Norway.

PURPOSE: New direct-acting antiviral (DAA) drugs have revolutionized the treatment of hepatitis C in recent years. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to analyse the cost effectiveness of combinations of different DAAs compared with ribavirin and peginterferon-α-2a, taking into account rebates from tender negotiations. METHODS: We used a compartmental model specifically developed for Norway to simulate hepatitis C and complications with and without different DAAs. All costs were based on Norwegian fees and estimates, estimating healthcare sector costs for the year 2016. We performed Monte Carlo simulations on uncertain input parameters to facilitate probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: For patients diagnosed with genotype 1, the combination of paritaprevir, ritonavir, ombitasvir and dasabuvir was cost effective compared with eight other available alternatives, given a cost-effectiveness threshold of €70,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. For genotype 2, the combination of sofosbuvir and ribavirin was the most effective and cost-effective alternative for all patients. Among available alternatives for patients with genotype 3, sofosbuvir in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin was the most cost-effective alternative, although the combination of daclatasvir and sofosbuvir was somewhat more effective. CONCLUSIONS: For each of the hepatitis C genotypes 1, 2 and 3, there were combinations of DAAs that were cost effective in a Norwegian setting. As a result of recent tender negotiations in Norway, treating all diagnosed patients with hepatitis C with the most cost-effective DAAs will result in lower total expenditure on these medications compared with 2015.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of daclatasvir + sofosbuvir + ribavirin (16 weeks and 12 weeks) vs sofosbuvir + ribavirin (16 weeks and 24 weeks) for the treatment of cirrhotic patients affected with hepatitis C virus genotype 3 in Italy.

The WHO estimates that more than 185 million people are infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) worldwide. The aim of the study is to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the use of daclatasvir (DCV) + sofosbuvir (SOF) + ribavirin (RBV) for 12 and 16 weeks vs SOF + RBV for 16 and 24 weeks for the treatment of genotype 3 HCV infected cirrhotic patients from the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A published cohort-based Markov model was used to perform the analysis estimating the lifetime direct medical costs associated with the management of the pathology and the quality adjusted life years gained by patients. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. SOF + RBV for 16 weeks was excluded from the analysis due to the significant lower effectiveness, compared with SOF + RBV for 24 weeks (51% vs 79%). DCV + SOF + RBV would increase QALYs and costs in all the comparisons: the ICERs obtained comparing DCV + SOF + RBV for 12 and 16 weeks with SOF + RBV for 24 weeks (reference scenario) are 38,572 €/QALY and 16,436 €/QALY, respectively, both below the 40,000 €/QALY threshold identified by the Italian Health Economics Association. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. The use of DCV + SOF + RBV is likely to be cost-effective compared with SOF + RBV (for 24 weeks) for the treatment of cirrhotic patients infected with genotype 3 HCV considering a threshold value of 40,000 €/QALY.

Micro-costing analysis of guideline-based treatment by direct-acting agents: the real-life case of hepatitis C management in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Eradication of hepatitis C virus (HCV) using direct-acting agents (DAA) has been associated with a financial burden to health authorities worldwide. We aimed to evaluate the guideline-based treatment costs by DAAs from the perspective of the Brazilian Ministry of Health (BMoH). METHODS: The activity based costing method was used to estimate the cost for monitoring/treatment of genotype-1 (GT1) HCV patients by the following strategies: peg-interferon (PEG-IFN)/ribavirin (RBV) for 48 weeks, PEG-IFN/RBV plus boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TEL) for 48 weeks, and sofosbuvir (SOF) plus daclastavir (DCV) or simeprevir (SIM) for 12 weeks. Costs were reported in United States Dollars without (US$) and with adjustment for purchasing power parity (PPP$). Drug costs were collected at the National Database of Health Prices and an overview of the literature was performed to assess effectiveness of SOF/DCV and SOF/SIM regimens in real-world cohorts. RESULTS: Treatment costs of GT1-HCV patients were PPP$ 43,176.28 (US$ 24,020.16) for PEG-IFN/RBV, PPP$ 71,196.03 (US$ 39,578.23) for PEG-IFN/RBV/BOC and PPP$ 86,250.33 (US$ 47,946.92) for PEG-IFN/RBV/TEL. Treatment by all-oral interferon-free regimens were the less expensive approach: PPP$ 19,761.72 (US$ 10,985.90) for SOF/DCV and PPP$ 21,590.91 (US$ 12,002.75) for SOF/SIM. The overview reported HCV eradication in up to 98% for SOF/DCV and 96% for SOF/SIM. CONCLUSION: Strategies with all oral interferon-free might lead to lower costs for management of GT1-HCV patients compared to IFN-based regimens in Brazil. This occurred mainly because of high discounts over international DAA prices due to negotiation between BMoH and pharmaceutical industries.

Cost effectiveness evaluation of hepatitis C therapy in Lahore.

Approximately 10 million Pakistan's of population is a victim of Hepatitis C virus. A comparative study of two treatments for Hepatitis C being provided in private clinics and government hospitals was conducted to evaluate the cost effectiveness of these treatments. The quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment plan was determined with the help of health utilities, using EQ-5D scores. A comprehensive data collection form aided in scrutinizing the cause and effect of each treatment on the patient's quality of life. The total sample size for this study is 200 total from the public and private sectors. For both the treatment strategies, values for quality adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost effective ratio (ICER) and cost effective analysis (CEA) were calculated. The Hepatitis C virus 3a and 3b genotypic patients who were treated with pegylated interferon α-2a and ribavirin combination (strategy 2) showed an increased quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of two years, as compared to those who received interferon α-2a and ribavirin regimen (strategy 1). An incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Rs 144673.5 per quality adjusted life year (QALYs) was gained by patients treated with strategy 2. The therapy followed by the government sector (strategy 1) is relatively inexpensive accounting for Rs 654.5/quality adjusted life years (QALY) and therapy provided at the clinic sector (strategy 2) is relatively expensive Rs 5620.6/ quality adjusted life years (QALY). However, the cost effectiveness analysis for the pegylated interferon therapy is quite comparable with the other standard treatments; hence it can be called cost effective according to the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and efficacy of the said therapy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New HCV Treatments in Egyptian Cirrhotic and Non-Cirrhotic Patients: A Societal Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir (SOF) + ribavirin (RBV), SOF + daclatasvir (DCV), and SOF + ledipasvir (LDV) + RBV compared with SOF + pegylated interferon alfa (pegIFN) + RBV in the treatment of patients infected with hepatitis C virus in Egypt. METHODS: Two Markov models were developed on the basis of the Egyptian clinical data and practice and were derived from published sources. The clinical parameters were derived from two sources: the Egypt multicenter national treatment program and previously published randomized clinical trials. The utility of the health states was derived using the available published data. Direct medical costs were obtained from the National Liver Institute database. RESULTS: In noncirrhotic patients, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US $2330 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the SOF + LDV + RBV, -US $9043/QALY for the SOF + DCV, and -US $1332/QALY for the SOF + RBV regimens were yielded. In cirrhotic patients, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of -US $4170/QALY gained for the SOF + LDV + RBV, -US $9515/QALY for the SOF + DCV, and -US $2289/QALY for the SOF + RBV regimens were yielded. The SOF + DCV regimen was the most cost-saving option for cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients. Deterministic sensitivity analyses remain robust. CONCLUSIONS: The present study concludes that the SOF + DCV regimen among other currently available regimens is the most cost-saving option that yields the most favorable future health economic outcomes compared with the SOF + pegIFN + RBV regimen across a broad spectrum of patients, including those with cirrhosis.

Identification of groups with poor cost-effectiveness of peginterferon plus ribavirin for naïve hepatitis C patients with a real-world cohort and database.

BACKGROUND: For decades, peginterferon and ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV) have been the standard-of-care for chronic hepatitis C virus (CHC) infection. However, the actual cost-effectiveness of this therapy remains unclear. We purposed to explore the real-world cost effectiveness for subgroups of treatment-naïve CHC patients with PegIFN/RBV therapy in a large real-world cohort using a whole population database. METHODS: A total of 1809 treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients (829 HCV genotype 1 [G1] and 980 HCV G2) treated with PegIFN/RBV therapies were linked to the National Health Insurance Research Database, covering the entire population of Taiwan from 1998 to 2013 to collect the total medical-care expenses of outpatient (antiviral agents, nonantiviral agents, laboratory, and consultation costs) and inpatient (medication, logistic, laboratory, and intervention costs) visits. The costs per treatment and the cost per sustained virological response (SVR) achieved were calculated. RESULTS: The average medical-care cost was USD $4823 (±$2984) per treatment and $6105 (±$3778) per SVR achieved. With SVR rates of 68.6% and 87.8%, the cost/SVR was significantly higher in G1 than those in G2 patients, respectively ($8285 vs $4663, P < .001). Treatment-naïve G1 patients of old ages, those with advanced fibrosis, high viral loads, or interleukin-28B unfavorable genotypes, or those without a rapid virological response (RVR: undetectable HCV RNA at week 4), or those with complete early virological response (cEVR: undetectable HCV RNA at week 12). Treatment-naïve G2 patients with high viral loads or without RVR or cEVR incurred significantly higher costs per SVR than their counterparts. The cost/SVR was extremely high among patients without RVR and in patients without cEVR. CONCLUSION: We investigated the real-world cost effectiveness data for different subgroups of treatment-naïve HCV patients with PegIFN/RBV therapies, which could provide useful, informative evidence for making decisions regarding future therapeutic strategies comprising costly direct-acting antivirals.

Effectiveness of triple therapy with direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C genotype 1 infection: application of propensity score matching in a national HCV treatment registry.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in non-experimental, real world scenarios at the population level and are recognised as an important component of the evidence pyramid. Such data can be accrued through prospective cohort studies and a patient registry is a proven method for this type of study. The national hepatitis C (HCV) registry was established in Ireland in 2012 with the aim of monitoring the clinical and economic outcomes from new, high cost regimens for the treatment of HCV infection. A sustained virological response (SVR) 24 weeks following completion of therapy with interferon-containing regimens is considered a cure. Non-randomisation in these studies can result in confounding or selection bias. Propensity score (PS) matching is one of a number of statistical tools that can be used to mitigate the effects of confounding in observational studies. METHODS: We analysed the data of 309 patients who underwent triple therapy treatment with telaprevir (TPV) in combination with pegylated-interferon and ribavirin (PR) or boceprevir (BOC)/PR between June 2012 and December 2014. The decision to initiate treatment and the selection of the treatment regimen was at the discretion of the physician. To adjust for confounding, three approaches to propensity score matching were assessed Adjusted sustained-virological response rates (SVR), odds ratios, p-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated from the three PS matched dataset. RESULTS: Prior to matching, the unadjusted sustained virological response rates 24 weeks after treatment complete (SVR24) were 74% (n = 158/215) and 61% (n = 57/94) for telaprevir/PR and boceprevir/PR, respectively. After matching, adjusted SVR24 rates were between 73-74% and 60-61% for telaprevir/PR and boceprevir/PR, respectively. CONCLUSION: Efficacy rates were comparable with those reported in pivotal clinical trials and real world studies. After adjusting for confounding, we conclude that there was no difference in treatment effect after PS matching. The small sample size limits the conclusions that can be made about the effect of PS matching. Propensity score adjustment remains a tool that can be applied to future analysis, however, we suggest, where possible, using a larger sample size in order to reduce the uncertainty around the outcomes.