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 of the highly effective direct-acting antivirals in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: In Asia-Pacific where cost is a major concern, peginterferon plus ribavirin (PR) often remain as the standard of care in chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treatment, while the direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are commonly recommended as retreatment. Newer DAAs can achieve a sustained virological response (SVR) of nearly 100% with pan-genotypic coverage, that is "Highly Effective DAAs." We aimed to investigate the most desirable cost range for the Highly Effective DAAs using Hong Kong as an example. METHODS: Markov modeling was performed using PR as the reference strategy. The cost-effectiveness of the Highly Effective DAAs was compared with sofosbuvir-PR (first-line and rescue) and boceprevir-PR therapies. A 50-year-old genotype 1b hepatitis C virus (HCV) infected treatment-naïve patient with METAVIR F3 was used as the base case scenario to reflect the commonest HCV genotype in Hong Kong. RESULTS: The use of PR would incur a lifetime cost of US$35,854 and effectiveness of 14.85 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sofosbuvir-PR as first-line treatment was dominated by other regimes. If Sofosbuvir-PR rescue therapy was used, the drug cost of Highly Effective DAAs should be set below US$43,553, with a cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of US$3035/QALY compared with PR. In regions where Boceprevir-PR was still used as first-line therapy, the desirable drug cost of Highly Effective DAAs would be below US$56,985 to achieve a CER of US$5427/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The most desirable costs of the Highly Effective DAAs would be below US$43,553 if Sofosbuvir-PR rescue therapy is used and below US$56,985 if Boceprevir-PR therapy is used.

Management of treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options.

New and more promising therapies for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) genotype 1 (G1) naive patients have recently been approved in the United States and Europe, and several more regimens are expected to become available within the next several years. While this scenario unfolds, it is necessary to develop a rational method to allocate current treatment in CHC G1 patients. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of boceprevir (BOC)- and telaprevir (TVR)-based triple therapy according to different patients' selection strategies. A semi-Markov model of CHC natural history and progression towards end-stage liver disease was built. We considered 3 selection strategies based on METAVIR fibrosis stage: (i) treat all patients with F1-F4 fibrosis, (ii) only F2-F4 and (iii) only F3-F4. For each strategy, TVR interleukin-28B-guided (IL28B-guided) and BOC rapid virologic response-guided (RVR-guided) therapies were applied. The model assessed the costs and outcomes, using a lifetime and 5-year time horizon, and adopting the Italian National Health System perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for F1-F4 strategy relative to F3-F4 was €5132 per quality-adjusted life years gained, across TVR IL-28B-guided therapy, and €7042 in the BOC RVR-guided therapy. Conversely, in the 5-year scenario, the ICER for F1-F4 strategy relative to F3-F4 was €1 818 679 (TVR IL28B-guided) and €1 866 437 (BOC RVR-guided) per end-stage liver disease or death (ESLD-D) avoided. In view of anticipated improvement in the efficacy of future regimens, selective treatment of only patients with advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis with TVR or BOC could represent the most cost-effective strategy to optimize resource utilization.

Direct costs of first-generation protease inhibitors for the treatment of genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C viral infection.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Hepatitis C therapy, robust real-world data are needed to understand the costs and benefits of treatment alternatives. The objective of this study was to evaluate the true direct cost of treatment in an unselected sequential population of patients treated at a tertiary care centre for hepatitis C virus genotype 1. A total of 200 consecutive patients were treated with interferon, ribavirin and a first-generation direct-acting antiviral agent (DAA) between 2011 and 2013. A total of 41% had cirrhosis, 31% were prior relapsers, and 41% were prior partial or null responders. Costs used were wholesale acquisition cost prices for medications, average hospital costs per day for each diagnosis code based on US inpatient hospital charges. All costs were adjusted to 2013 dollars. Sustained virologic response (SVR) was achieved in 97 patients (48.5%). A total of 14% experienced relapse, 19% breakthrough or nonresponse, and 18.5% discontinued secondary to side effects. Twenty per cent of patients had at least one hospitalization attributable to a complication of therapy. Thirty-seven per cent of patients required erythropoietin-stimulating agents, 16% received filgastrim, and 15% needed a red blood cell transfusion. The mean overall cost of treatment was $83,851 per patient. The cost per SVR was $172,889; $266,670 for patients with cirrhosis. The costs per SVR after treatment with first-generation DAAs are dependent on the stage of disease and therapy side effects. These real-world costs significantly exceed those described in prior cost-effectiveness assessments and should be used instead for future studies.

Cost-effectiveness of Interferon-free therapy for Hepatitis C in Germany--an application of the efficiency frontier approach.

BACKGROUND: The approval of direct-acting antivirals for Interferon-free treatment revolutionized the therapy of chronic Hepatitis C infection. As of August 2014, two treatment regimens for genotype 1 infection received conditional approval in the European Union: Sofosbuvir and Ribavirin for 24 weeks and Sofosbuvir and Simeprevir with or without Ribavirin for 12 weeks. We aim to analyze the cost-effectiveness of both regimens in Germany. METHODS: We set up a Markov model with a lifetime horizon to simulate immediate treatment success and long-term disease progression for treatment-naive patients. The model analyzes both short-term and long-term costs and benefits from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance. We apply the efficiency frontier method, which was suggested by German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care for cost-effectiveness analysis in Germany. RESULTS: The efficiency frontier is defined by dual therapy and first generation direct-acting antiviral Boceprevir, yielding a maximum of € 1,447.69 per additional percentage point of sustained virologic response gained. Even without rebates, Sofosbuvir/Simeprevir is very close with € 1,560.13 per additional percentage point. It is both more effective and less expensive than Sofosbuvir/Ribavirin. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to higher sustained virologic response rates, new direct-acting antivirals save long-term costs by preventing complications such as liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and ultimately liver transplants, thereby offsetting part of higher drug costs. Our findings are in line with the guidance published by German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases, which recommends Sofosbuvir/Simeprevir for Interferon ineligible or intolerant patients.

[Incidence, management and costs of adverse effects in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir: first 12 weeks of treatment]. / Incidencia, manejo y coste de los efectos adversos hematológicos y dermatológicos durante las 12primeras semanas de tratamiento con triple terapia para hepatitisC.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to analyze the incidence, management and cost associated to hematological and dermatological adverse effects (AE) in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy (TT) with telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC). METHODS: An analysis was made on the data recorded on patients who started treatment with TVR or BOC associated with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin in a 12-week follow-up period. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included (TVR n=36; BOC n=17). Thrombocytopenia (83% TVR vs. 88% BOC) followed by neutropenia (89% TVR vs. 82% BOC) were the most common AE. Dermatological AE were observed in 32% of patients. Eleven patients required treatment discontinuation (all of them received TVR), and toxicity was the main reason for discontinuation (64%). The percentage of patients who required supportive treatment for management of AE was 66%. The most used supportive treatment was erythropoietin. Eight patients required emergency health care, and 2 were hospitalized due to AE. Total cost of additional supportive resources was 32,522€ (625 [SD=876]€/patient) (TVR 759 [SD=1,022]€/patient vs. BOC 349 [SD=327]€/patient; P>.05). Patients with gradeiii-iv toxicity required greater supportive care with higher costs, compared to patients with gradei-ii toxicity (849 [SD=1,143]€/patient vs. 387 [SD=397]€/patient; P=.053). CONCLUSION: The addition of new protease inhibitors to conventional treatment leads to a higher incidence of hematological AE in our study, compared to data described in clinical trials. The elevated incidence of AE involves the use of supportive care, increasing total costs of therapy.

[Cost-effectiveness and safety of telaprevir and boceprevir for chronic hepatitis C in real-world clinical practice]. / Coste-efectividad y seguridad de telaprevir y boceprevir para el tratamiento de la hepatitis C crónica en la práctica clínica.

INTRODUCTION: Triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir has proven to be effective in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C with response rates of up to 88%. However, the treatment may be associated with important adverse effects and a high economic impact. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and safety of triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. METHODS: Retrospective observational study. We included all patients who had started treatment with protease inhibitors before July 31(st), 2013. We evaluated sustained virological response, the cost per patient achieving sustained virological response, and the cost of the supportive treatment for adverse events associated with triple therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were included; 35 had been treated with telaprevir (59.3%) and 24 with boceprevir (40.7%). Sustained virological response was achieved by 38 (64.4%) patients: 24 (68.6%) patients in the telaprevir treatment arm and 14 (58.3%) patients in the boceprevir treatment arm. The cost per patient with sustained virological response was 43,555 € (95% CI 35,389-51,722 €). There were no statistically significant differences between the overall costs of therapy with telaprevir, 43,494 € (95% CI 34,795 €-55,092 €) versus boceprevir, 42,005 € (95% CI 32,122-64,243€). The mean cost of supportive care per patient was 1,500 €, while the maximum cost was 11,374 €. Due to adverse events, 8 (13.6%) patients required hospital admission, 22 (37.3%) patients attended the accident and emergency department, and 26 (44.1%) patients needed additional medical consultations. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir resulted in high cost per patient with sustained virological response. Due to adverse events, a high number of patients required supportive care, whose costs should be added to those of triple therapy.

Should we await IFN-free regimens to treat HCV genotype 1 treatment-naive patients? A cost-effectiveness analysis (ANRS 95141).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In treatment-naive patients mono-infected with genotype 1 chronic HCV, treatments with telaprevir/boceprevir (TVR/BOC)-based triple therapy are standard-of-care. However, more efficacious direct-acting antivirals (IFN-based new DAAs) are available and interferon-free (IFN-free) regimens are imminent (2015). METHODS: A mathematical model estimated quality-adjusted life years, cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of (i) IFN-based new DAAs vs. TVR/BOC-based triple therapy; and (ii) IFN-based new DAAs initiation strategies, given that IFN-free regimens are imminent. The sustained virological response in F3-4/F0-2 was 71/89% with IFN-based new DAAs, 85/95% with IFN-free regimens, vs. 64/80% with TVR/BOC-based triple therapy. Serious adverse events leading to discontinuation were taken as: 0-0.6% with IFN-based new DAAs, 0% with IFN-free regimens, vs. 1-10% with TVR/BOC-based triple therapy. Costs were €60,000 for 12weeks of IFN-based new DAAs and two times higher for IFN-free regimens. RESULTS: Treatment with IFN-based new DAAs when fibrosis stage ⩾F2 is cost-effective compared to TVR/BOC-based triple therapy (€37,900/QALY gained), but not at F0-1 (€103,500/QALY gained). Awaiting the IFN-free regimens is more effective, except in F4 patients, but not cost-effective compared to IFN-based new DAAs. If we decrease the cost of IFN-free regimens close to that of IFN-based new DAAs, then awaiting the IFN-free regimen becomes cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IFN-based new DAAs at stage ⩾F2 is both effective and cost-effective compared to TVR/BOC triple therapy. Awaiting IFN-free regimens and then treating regardless of fibrosis is more efficacious, except in F4 patients; however, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is highly dependent on its cost.

Cost-effectiveness of boceprevir or telaprevir for previously treated patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) show that triple therapy (TT) with peginterferon alfa, ribavirin, and boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TVR) is more effective than peginterferon-ribavirin dual therapy (DT) in the treatment of genotype 1 (G1) chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients with previous relapse (RR), partial response (PAR), and null-response (NR). We assess the cost-effectiveness of TT compared to no therapy in the treatment of patients previously treated with G1 CHC. METHODS: The available published literature provided the data source. The target population was made up of previously treated Caucasian patients with G1 CHC and these were evaluated over a lifetime horizon by Markov model. The study was carried out from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. Outcomes included discounted costs (in euro at 2012 value), life years gained (LYG), quality adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).The robustness of the results was evaluated by one-way deterministic and multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In RR patients, ICER per LYG compared to no therapy was €9555 for BOC-LEAD-IN-RR and €7910 for TVR-LEAD-IN-RR, being BOC dominated by TVR. In PAR patients, ICER for LYG was €11,947 for BOC-LEAD-IN-PAR and €14,931 for TVR-PAR, being TVR cost-effective compared to BOC (ICER for QALY €22,258). In NR patients, ICER for LYG was €26,499 for TVR-LEAD-IN-NR. The models were sensitive to likelihood of sustained virological response and to BOC/TVR prices. CONCLUSIONS: 1st generation HCV PI is highly cost-effective compared to no therapy in RR and PAR G1 CHC patients. TVR dominated BOC in RR, and was cost-effective compared to BOC in PAR patients. In NR patients an assessment of the response after a lead-in period should be performed to improve safety and cost-effectiveness.

Cost effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral therapy for treatment-naive patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection in the veterans health administration.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest single provider of care for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in the United States. We analyzed the cost effectiveness of treatment with the HCV protease inhibitors boceprevir and telaprevir in a defined managed care population of 102,851 patients with untreated chronic genotype 1 infection. METHODS: We used a decision-analytic Markov model to examine 4 strategies: standard dual-therapy with pegylated interferon-alfa and ribavirin (PR), the combination of boceprevir and PR triple therapy, the combination of telaprevir and PR, or no antiviral treatment. A sensitivity analysis was performed. Sources of data included published rates of disease progression, the census bureau, and VHA pharmacy and hospitalization cost databases. RESULTS: The estimated costs for treating each patient were $8000 for PR, $31,300 for boceprevir and PR, and $41,700 for telaprevir and PR. Assuming VHA treatment rates of 22% and optimal rates of sustained virologic response, PR, boceprevir and PR, and telaprevir and PR would reduce relative liver-related deaths by 5.2%, 10.9%, and 11.5%, respectively. Increasing treatment rates to 50% would reduce liver-related deaths by 12%, 24.7%, and 26.1%, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $29,184/quality-adjusted life-years for boceprevir and PR and $44,247/quality-adjusted life-years for telaprevir and PR vs only PR. With the current 22% treatment rate, total system-wide costs to adopt boceprevir and PR or telaprevir and PR would range from $708 to $943 million. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial up-front costs of treating HCV-infected patients in the VHA with PR, or telaprevir and PR, each regimen improves quality of life and extends life expectancy by reducing liver-related morbidity and mortality, and should be cost effective. Further efforts to expand access to direct-acting antiviral therapy are warranted.

What about us? Recent advances in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C threaten to leave some parts of the world behind.

Summary. Directly acting antiviral (DAA) agents are currently revolutionizing the treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection. The first generation of these agents have significant limitations including cost issues that are of particular concern in the developing world and a lack of efficacy in genotype 3 patients. Both of these concerns are of particular relevance in Pakistan.

Cost-effectiveness of boceprevir or telaprevir for untreated patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C.

UNLABELLED: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that triple therapy (TT) with peginterferon alpha, ribavirin, and boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TVR) is more effective than peginterferon-ribavirin dual therapy (DT) in the treatment of previously untreated patients with genotype 1 (G(1) ) chronic hepatitis C (CHC). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of TT compared to DT in the treatment of untreated patients with G(1) CHC. We created a Markov Decision Model to evaluate, in untreated Caucasian patients age 50 years, weight 70 kg, with G(1) CHC and Metavir F2 liver fibrosis score, for a time horizon of 20 years, the cost-effectiveness of the following five competing strategies: 1) boceprevir response-guided therapy (BOC-RGT); 2) boceprevir IL28B genotype-guided strategy (BOC-IL28B); 3) boceprevir rapid virologic response (RVR)-guided strategy (BOC-RVR); 4) telaprevir response-guided therapy (TVR-RGT); 5) telaprevir IL28B genotype-guided strategy (TVR-IL28B). Outcomes included life-years gained (LYG), costs (in 2011 euros) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In the base-case analysis BOC-RVR and TVR-IL28B strategies were the most effective and cost-effective of evaluated strategies. LYG was 4.04 with BOC-RVR and 4.42 with TVR-IL28B. ICER compared with DT was € 8.304 per LYG for BOC-RVR and € 11.455 per LYG for TVR-IL28B. The model was highly sensitive to IL28B CC genotype, likelihood of RVR and sustained virologic response, and BOC/TVR prices. CONCLUSION: In untreated G(1) CHC patients age 50 years, TT with first-generation protease inhibitors is cost-effective compared with DT. Multiple strategies to reduce costs and improve effectiveness include RVR or genotype-guided treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of boceprevir in patients previously treated for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 infection in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The phase 3 trial, Serine Protease Inhibitor Boceprevir and PegIntron/Rebetol-2 (RESPOND-2), demonstrated that the addition of boceprevir (BOC) to peginterferon-ribavirin (PR) resulted in significantly higher rates of sustained virologic response (SVR) in previously treated patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype-1 infection as compared with PR alone. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatment with BOC in previously treated patients with chronic hepatitis C in the United States using treatment-related data from RESPOND-2 and PROVIDE studies. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model to project the burden of HCV disease, lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life-years associated with PR and two BOC-based therapies-response-guided therapy (BOC/RGT) and fixed-duration therapy for 48 weeks (BOC/PR48). We estimated treatment-related inputs (efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuations) from clinical trials and obtained disease progression rates, costs, and quality-of-life data from published studies. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for BOC-based regimens as studied in RESPOND-2, as well as by patient's prior response to treatment and the IL-28B genotype. RESULTS: BOC-based regimens were projected to reduce the lifetime incidence of liver-related complications by 43% to 53% in comparison with treatment with PR. The ICER of BOC/RGT in comparison with that of PR was $30,200, and the ICER of BOC/PR48 in comparison with that of BOC/RGT was $91,500. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000, the probabilities of BOC/RGT and BOC/PR48 being the preferred option were 0.74 and 0.25, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients previously treated for chronic HCV genotype-1 infection, BOC was projected to increase quality-adjusted life-years and reduce the lifetime incidence of liver complications. In addition, BOC-based therapies were projected to be cost-effective in comparison with PR alone at commonly used willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Boceprevir for previously untreated patients with chronic hepatitis C Genotype 1 infection: a US-based cost-effectiveness modeling study.

BACKGROUND: SPRINT-2 demonstrated that boceprevir (BOC), an oral hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural 3 (NS3) protease inhibitor, added to peginterferon alfa-2b (P) and ribavirin (R) significantly increased sustained virologic response rates over PR alone in previously untreated adult patients with chronic HCV genotype 1. We estimated the long-term impact of triple therapy vs. dual therapy on the clinical burden of HCV and performed a cost-effectiveness evaluation. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the incidence of liver complications, discounted costs (2010 US$), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of three treatment strategies for treatment-naïve patients with chronic HCV genotype 1. The model simulates the treatment regimens studied in SPRINT-2 in which PR was administered for 4 weeks followed by: 1) placebo plus PR for 44 weeks (PR48); 2) BOC plus PR using response guided therapy (BOC/RGT); and 3) BOC plus PR for 44 weeks (BOC/PR48) and makes projections within and beyond the trial. HCV-related state-transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from previously published studies. All costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%. RESULTS: The model projected approximately 38% and 43% relative reductions in the lifetime incidence of liver complications in the BOC/RGT and BOC/PR48 regimens compared with PR48, respectively. Treatment with BOC/RGT is associated with an incremental cost of $10,348 and an increase of 0.62 QALYs compared to treatment with PR48. Treatment with BOC/PR48 is associated with an incremental cost of $35,727 and an increase of 0.65 QALYs compared to treatment with PR48. The ICERs were $16,792/QALY and $55,162/QALY for the boceprevir-based treatment groups compared with PR48, respectively. The ICER for BOC/PR48 compared with BOC/RGT was $807,804. CONCLUSION: The boceprevir-based regimens used in the SPRINT-2 trial were projected to substantially reduce the lifetime incidence of liver complications and increase the QALYs in treatment-naive patients with hepatitis C genotype 1. It was also demonstrated that boceprevir-based regimens offer patients the possibility of experiencing great clinical benefit with a shorter duration of therapy. Both boceprevir-based treatment strategies were projected to be cost-effective at a reasonable threshold in the US when compared to treatment with PR48.

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.

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.

Hepatitis C in Brazil: lessons learned with boceprevir and telaprevir.

In 2012, the first-generation protease inhibitors telaprevir (TVR) and boceprevir (BOC) were introduced in the Brazilian health system for treatment of chronic hepatitis C, after their approval by the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (CONITEC). However, these medicines were discontinued in 2015. The short period of use in therapy and their high cost require a discussion about the consequences for patients and for the health system of the early incorporation of new therapies. The article presents a qualitative analysis of the incorporation process of both medications in Brazil and the results of a multicenter study that included patients treated with BOC or TVR between January 2011 and December 2015 in five Brazilian cities. The study included 855 patients (BOC: n=247) and (TVR: n=608). The document analysis showed that CONITEC's decision to incorporate BOC and TVR was based on results of phase III clinical trials that compared sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of patients treated with BOC and TVR with rates of those that received placebo. However, these studies included a low percentage of cirrhotic patients. The SVR rates observed in this multicenter study were worse than clinical trials pointed out (BOC: 45.6%; TVR: 51.8%), but similar to those achieved with previously adopted therapies. The discontinuation rate due to adverse events was (BOC: 15.4%; TVR: 12.7%). Based on these unsatisfactory results, the study brings a discussion that goes beyond the therapy outcomes, exploring the incorporation of these high-cost medicines and the related decision-making process, contributing to future decisions in medicine policies and in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C.

Treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and costs in U.S. patients diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C infection who received telaprevir or boceprevir.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, with the future burden of disease predicted to significantly increase. The recent addition of 2 direct-acting antiviral (DAA) protease inhibitors, telaprevir and boceprevir, to peginterferon alfa (PEG) and ribavirin (RBV) therapy has been shown to significantly improve sustained virologic response rates and thus has become standard of care. While the efficacy and safety of DAAs has been assessed in the clinical trial setting, less is known about real-world use of these new therapies. OBJECTIVES: To (a) evaluate the treatment patterns, health care utilization, and costs of CHC patients receiving DAA-based therapies in the United States using a retrospective analysis of a large administrative claims database and (b) evaluate factors associated with therapy noncompletion using multivariable analyses. METHODS: Adult patients with ≥ 1 claim for CHC and a prescription filled for boceprevir or telaprevir were selected from a de-identified U.S.-based claims database. The date of the first fill for a DAA after May 13, 2011 (date of first DAA availability) was defined as the index date, and patients were categorized into either the telaprevir or boceprevir cohort. Patients were required to have continuous eligibility and no claims for hepatitis B during the 6 months before (baseline) and 12 months following (study period) the index date. Baseline characteristics and study period treatment patterns, health care utilization, and costs were described. Factors associated with therapy noncompletion were examined using multivariable logistic regression, and adjusted health care costs were compared between the DAA cohorts using multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 871 telaprevir and 284 boceprevir patients were identified. DAA patients were aged 54 years on average and more often were male (60%, n = 688). Approximately 25% (n = 216) of telaprevir and 18% (n = 52) of boceprevir patients had cirrhosis, and 9% (n = 82) of telaprevir and 7% (n = 20) of boceprevir patients had decompensated cirrhosis at baseline. Less than 1% (n = 9) of patients were HIV co-infected. Approximately 54% (n = 470) of telaprevir and 74% (n = 210) of boceprevir patients did not complete the minimum duration of therapy as per the prescribing information (telaprevir: 12 weeks of triple + 12 weeks of dual; boceprevir: 3 weeks of lead-in + 24 weeks of triple). In multivariable analyses, females (vs. males) and patients taking boceprevir (vs. telaprevir) were more likely to not complete therapy (P = 0.011). CHC patients experienced high medical and drug-related resource utilization. Telaprevir patients had numerically higher study period unadjusted medical (boceprevir: $16,927; telaprevir: $19,519) and drug costs (boceprevir: $59,953; telaprevir: $76,497) than boceprevir patients; however, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, only drug costs remained significantly different (P less than 0.001).  CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that a large proportion of CHC patients receiving telaprevir or boceprevir did not complete minimum duration of therapy as per the prescribing information. CHC patients on a DAA regimen also experienced high resource utilization and high medical and drug costs.