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.

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.

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.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment in Hepatitis C-Infected Liver Transplant Candidates With Compensated Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV)(+) donors represent an effective strategy to increase liver donor availability to HCV-infected recipients. However, many HCV(+) transplant candidates are now receiving treatment with direct-acting anti-viral (DAA) agents that lower the risk of posttransplant HCV recurrence but could make the patient ineligible for HCV(+) livers. METHODS: We compared pretransplant DAA treatment versus deferred DAA treatment using a cost-effectiveness decision analysis model to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per quality-adjusted life year gained) from the societal perspective across a range of HCV(+) liver availability rates. For practical considerations, the population modeled was restricted to well-compensated HCV(+) cirrhotics listed for liver transplantation with hepatocellular carcinoma MELD exception points. RESULTS: Under base case conditions, the deferred DAA treatment strategy was found to be the "dominant" strategy. That is, it provided superior health outcomes at cost savings compared to the pretransplant DAA treatment strategy. The pretransplant DAA treatment strategy trended towards cost-effectiveness as HCV(+) donor liver availability declined. However, only in 1 scenario that was highly optimized for favorable outcomes in the pretransplant DAA treatment arm (low availability of HCV(+) organs, low cost of DAA treatment, high cost of HCV recurrence) was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with HCV DAA treatment before transplant less than US $150 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: Deferring HCV treatment until after liver transplant and maintaining access to the expanded pool of HCV(+) donors appears to be the most cost-effective strategy for well-compensated HCV-infected cirrhotics listed for liver transplantation with hepatocellular carcinoma, even in geographic areas of relatively low HCV(+) donor availability.

Economic evaluation of pegylated interferon plus ribavirin for treatment of chronic hepatitis C in Thailand: genotype 1 and 6.

BACKGROUND: Pegylated interferon alpha 2a, alpha 2b and ribavirin have been included to the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) for treatment of only chronic hepatitis C genotypes 2 and 3 in Thailand. This reimbursement policy has not covered for other genotypes of hepatitis C virus infection (HCV) especially for genotypes 1 and 6 that account for 30-50 % of all HCV infection in Thailand. Therefore, this research determined whether pegylated interferon alpha 2a or alpha 2b plus ribavirin is more cost-effective than a palliative care for treatment of HCV genotype 1 and 6 in Thailand. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis using a model-based economic evaluation was conducted based on a societal perspective. A Markov model was developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) comparing between the combination of pegylated interferon alpha 2a or alpha 2b and ribavirin with a usual palliative care for genotype 1 and 6 HCV patients. Health-state transition probabilities, virological responses, and utility values were obtained from published literatures. Direct medical and direct non-medical costs were included and retrieved from published articles and Thai Standard Cost List for Health Technology Assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented as costs in Thai baht per QALY gained. RESULTS: HCV treatment with pegylated interferon alpha 2a or alpha 2b plus ribavirin was dominant or cost-saving in Thailand compared to a palliative care. The ICER value was negative with lower in total costs (peg 2a- 747,718vs. peg 2b- 819,921 vs. palliative care- 1,169,121 Thai baht) and more in QALYs (peg 2a- 13.44 vs. peg 2b- 13.14 vs. palliative care- 11.63 years) both in HCV genotypes 1 and 6. CONCLUSION: As cost-saving results, the Subcommittee for Development of the NLEM decided to include both pegylated interferon alpha 2a and alpha 2b into the NLEM for treatment of HCV genotype 1 and 6 recently. Economic evaluation for these current drugs can be further applied to other novel medications for HCV treatment.

Estimation of direct medical cost related to the management of chronic hepatitis C and its complications in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the direct medical costs of managing chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and its complications based on health-care resources in South Korea. METHODS: The study design was multicenter, retrospective, non-interventional, and observational. Between September 2013 and April 2014, health-care resource data from patients chronically infected with hepatitis C virus, regardless of genotype, were collected from 8 institutions, including data related to outpatient management, emergency care, and hospitalization. The observation period was between January 2011 and December 2012. The disease state was classified as CHC, compensated cirrhosis (CC), decompensated cirrhosis (DC), or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). RESULTS: A total of 445 patients were recruited and mean age was 60.1 ±â€Š12.3 years. Among 155 patients with reported outcomes of antiviral therapy, 107 (69%) had sustained virologic response (SVR). The rate of patients who did not receive antiviral therapy was 52.8% (n = 235). The distribution of disease state was CHC in 307 patients (69.0%), CC in 75 (16.9%), HCC in 45 (10.1%), and DC in 18 (4.0%). All direct medical costs, whether reimbursed or nonreimbursed by the National Health Insurance System, were included. After excluding patients whose observational period was <1 month for each disease status, the mean costs per month increased as disease state progressed (CHC: 77 ±â€Š80 USD; CC: 98 ±â€Š94 USD; DC: 512 ±â€Š1115 USD; HCC: 504 ±â€Š717 USD). The mean total costs per person were 3590 ±â€Š8783 USD, and approximately 72% of patients were reimbursed. When 44 patients with an observation period <1 month were excluded, the mean medical costs per month for patients with CHC who achieved SVR (n = 69) were significantly lower than for those (n = 215) who did not (42 ±â€Š16 vs 79 ±â€Š83 USD, P < 0.001). The cost also tended to be lower for patients with CC with SVR (n = 8) than for those without SVR (n = 70; 48 ±â€Š20 vs 95 ±â€Š96 USD, P = 0.177). The cost of antiviral therapy (pegylated interferon and ribavirin) corresponded to 19.0% of total medical costs and 53.7% of prescription/pharmacy. CONCLUSION: The direct medical costs increased as disease state progressed from CHC to cirrhosis or HCC. The achievement of SVR by antiviral therapy would decrease the costs.

Adoption of new agents and changes in treatment patterns for hepatitis C: 2010-2014.

OBJECTIVES: A number of new hepatitis C virus (HCV) medications have become available in the United States, but little is known about how these treatments have been adopted into practice and their financial burden on patients. The aim of this study was to examine whether the introduction of new HCV medications was associated with changes in treatment rates and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from Optum Labs Data Warehouse. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis using a large, US commercial insurance database to identify 56,116 adults with chronic HCV between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014. Logistic regression was performed to calculate patients' predicted probability of being treated before and after the new medications became available. RESULTS: A total of 5436 (9.7%) of patients with HCV received treatment during an average of 1.8 years of follow-up. In the last quarter of 2014, 0.1% of patients with HCV received interferon/ribavirin as the primary treatment; no one received boceprevir or telaprevir, 1.1% received sofosbuvir combined with simeprevir, 1.4% received sofosbuvir or simeprevir alone, and 2.0% received ledipasvir/sofosbuvir. The introduction of new medications was significantly associated with an increased treatment rate, from 5.4% to 6.8% (P < .001). The increase was high among elderly patients and patients with liver transplant, liver cancer, and liver disease or cirrhosis. The median OOP costs of patients receiving new regimens were relatively low ($112-$340), but great variations existed. CONCLUSIONS: At the end of 2014, patients were almost exclusively using new therapies, which was associated with increased treatment rate, especially among patients who may need urgent treatment but are intolerant or ineligible for interferon-based regimens.

Aerosolized ribavirin: the most expensive drug for pneumonia.

Dramatic, overnight cost increases of important orphan and generic medications have recently come under public and government scrutiny. We highlight the case of aerosolized ribavirin, an important antiviral agent in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation which, because of substantial price increases, may now cost more than the transplant procedure itself.

Cost-effectiveness of currently recommended direct-acting antiviral treatments in patients infected with genotypes 1 or 4 hepatitis C virus in the US.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral therapies currently recommended for treating genotypes (GT) 1 and 4 chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients in the US. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for CHC from a US payer's perspective over a lifelong time horizon was performed. A Markov model based on the natural history of CHC was used for a population that included treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Treatment alternatives considered for GT1 included ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir ± ribavirin (3D ± R), sofosbuvir + ledipasvir (SOF/LDV), sofosbuvir + simeprevir (SOF + SMV), simeprevir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin (SMV + PR) and no treatment (NT). For GT4 treatments, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + ribavirin (2D + R), SOF/LDV and NT were compared. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs were obtained from published literature. Outcomes included rates of compensated cirrhosis (CC), decompensated cirrhosis (DCC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver-related death (LrD), total costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and QALYs were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: In GT1 patients, 3D ± R and SOF-containing regimens have similar long-term outcomes; 3D ± R had the lowest lifetime risks of all liver disease outcomes: CC = 30.2%, DCC = 5.0 %, HCC = 6.8%, LT = 1.9% and LrD = 9.2%. In GT1 patients, 3D ± R had the lowest cost and the highest QALYs. As a result, 3D ± R dominated these treatment options. In GT4 patients, 2D + R had lower rates of liver morbidity and mortality, lower cost and more QALYs than SOF/LDV and NT. LIMITATIONS: While the results are based on input values, which were obtained from a variety of heterogeneous sources-including clinical trials, the findings were robust across a plausible range of input values, as demonstrated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Among currently recommended treatments for GT1 and GT4 in the US, 3D ± R (for GT1) and 2D + R (for GT4) have a favorable cost-effectiveness profile.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir, peginterferon and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C: Early treatment in the initial stage of fibrosis vs. delayed treatment in advanced fibrosis]. / Análisis coste-efectividad de sofosbuvir, interferón pegilado y ribavirina en pacientes con hepatitis crónica por virus C: tratamiento precoz en fases iniciales de fibrosis vs. tratamiento tardío en fases avanzadas.

AIMS: Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir combined with peginterferon alpha-2a and ribavirin (SOF/Peg-IFN/RBV) in early versus advanced fibrosis in previously untreated patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 (CHC-GT1), from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS). METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare lifetime costs and outcomes (life years gained [LYGs] and quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) of 2 treatment strategies: SOF/Peg-IFN/RBV administered during early fibrosis (mild-moderate fibrosis; F2-F3) or advanced fibrosis (cirrhosis; F4). Efficacy (sustained virologic response), annual transition probabilities, disease management costs and utilities were obtained from the literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted annually at 3%. Direct costs were considered, expressed in Euros (€, 2014). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was also performed. RESULTS: SOF/Peg-IFN/RBV therapy at F2-F3 was more effective (19.12 LYGs and 14.14 QALYs) compared to F4. In a cohort of 1,000 patients, SOF/Peg-IFN/RBV prevented 66 cases of decompensated cirrhosis, 60 hepatocellular carcinomas and 4 liver transplantations compared with therapy in advanced fibrosis. The total lifetime cost of early therapy (€43,263) was less than the cost of treatment in the advanced stage (€49,018). Early therapy was a dominant strategy, more effective and less costly in all simulations. In the PSA analysis, administration of SOF/PEG-IFN/RBV at F2-F3 was dominant in all simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Starting SOF/Peg-IFN/RBV therapy at F2-F3, compared with therapy at F4, reduced the incidence of liver disease complications and was associated with cost savings for the Spanish NHS in CHC-GT1 patients.

Costs and outcomes of treating chronic hepatitis C patients in routine care - results from a nationwide multicenter trial.

Viral hepatitis is a major public health problem affecting millions of people worldwide. Long-term consequences are the development of liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The aim of the study was to assess outcomes and costs of treating patients with chronic hepatitis C in clinical practice in Germany. We carried out a prospective noninterventional study. Information on treatment outcomes, resource utilization and quality of life was provided by 281 physicians throughout Germany. Data of 3708 monoinfected HCV-patients treated between 2008 and 2011 were analysed. Therapy consisted of peginterferon/ribavirin. Mean age of patients was 43.7 years, 60.3% were male and estimated duration of infection was 13.6 years. Predominantly genotype 1 (61.3%) or 3 (28.5%) infections were observed. Sustained viral response (SVR)-rates in most frequently observed genotypes were 49.2% in GT-1 and 61.9% in GT-3 treatment-naive patients (Relapser: GT-1: 35.3% and GT-3: 57.3%; Nonresponder: GT-1: 25.0% and GT-3: 33.3%). Average treatment costs were lowest in treatment-naive patients (€18 965) and higher in patients who failed previous treatments (relapsers: €24 753; nonresponders: €19 511). Differences according to genotype were observed. Average costs per SVR in treatment-naive patients were €44 744 for GT-1 and €22 218 for GT-3. Treatment was associated with a decrease in quality of life; post-treatment quality of life was higher in patients achieving SVR. Our insight on real-life treatment outcomes and costs can serve as a reference for a comparison with other treatments. There is high need for short-term and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis in real-life settings as newly introduced treatment strategies with direct acting antivirals result in high SVR-rates but are more costly.

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.

Boceprevir for Chronic Genotype 1 Hepatitis C Virus in the Current Health Care Setting in Greece: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: Boceprevir, as an add-on to the standard of care (SOC) for chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (G1 HCV), pegylated interferon + ribavirin for 48 weeks (PEG + RBV), has been reported to have a clinical profile superior to that of SOC alone. The objective of the present study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy with PEG + RBV + boceprevir to that of SOC in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients with G1 HCV in Greece. METHODS: A Markov model that simulated the quality-adjusted life expectancy and corresponding costs of treating G1 HCV infection provided the basis of the analysis. Treatment strategies under consideration were those in the Phase III boceprevir trials: (1) boceprevir response-guided therapy (shortened treatment duration for early responders); (2) fixed-duration (4-week) SOC plus 44 weeks of triple therapy; and (3) 48-week SOC. Efficacy data and the baseline characteristics of the study population were based on data from the SPRINT-2 (Serine Protease Inhibitor Therapy 2) and RESPOND-2 (Retreatment with HCV Serine Protease Inhibitor Boceprevir and PegIntron/Rebetol 2) clinical trials. Health care resource utilization and costs reflect the local clinical setting, with a 3% discount per annum, and were assessed from a third-party payer perspective. FINDINGS: Triple therapy was projected to reduce liver complications (eg, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, need for liver transplantation, and liver-related death) by 44% to 45% and 49% to 53% in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, respectively, over a lifetime horizon, leading to corresponding gains of 0.87 and 1.25 quality-adjusted life-years gained per patient. Taking into account the costs of medications, treatment, and outcomes management, the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of triple therapy versus SOC were €10,003 and €10,852 per quality-adjusted life-years gained in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients. Extensive sensitivity analyses suggested that the findings were robust over a wide range of inputs. IMPLICATIONS: Based on the findings from the present analysis, the addition of boceprevir to PEG + RBV for the treatment of patients with G1 HCV may be a cost-effective alternative in the health care setting in Greece.

Hepatitis C in Arkansas: updates on epidemiology, testing and treatment.

Hepatitis C infection is the most common blood-borne infection in the United States with an estimated 2.7 million individuals suffering from chronic infection. Of those who are infected with Hepatitis C virus, 75-85% develop chronic infection. Without treatment for chronic infection, individuals can develop liver diseases, such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, during many years of asymptomatic infection. To examine the burden of Hepatitis C virus infection in the state, the Arkansas Department of Health created an epidemiologic profile based on data collected in 2013 from several data sources, including the department's Hepatitis C surveillance program. In order to make more Arkansans aware of their infection, the local health units in all 75 counties of the state recently began screening individuals at risk for the disease, including persons born during the years 1945-1965. Despite recent advances in treatment efficacy, identifying infected individuals and connecting patients to affordable HCV treatment and care remain priorities.

Cost-effectiveness model for hepatitis C screening and treatment: Implications for Egypt and other countries with high prevalence.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a major cause of cirrhosis and liver cancer, and many developing countries report intermediate-to-high prevalence. However, the economic impact of screening and treatment for HCV in high prevalence countries has not been well studied. Thus, we examined the cost-effectiveness of screening and treatment for HCV infection for asymptomatic, average-risk adults using a Markov decision analytic model. In our model, we collected age-specific prevalence, disease progression rates for Egyptians and local cost estimates in Egypt, which has the highest prevalence of HCV infection (~15%) in the world. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and conducted sensitivity analyses to determine how cost-effective HCV screening and treatment might be in other developing countries with high and intermediate prevalence. In Egypt, implementing a screening programme using triple-therapy treatment (sofosbuvir with pegylated interferon and ribavirin) was dominant compared with no screening because it would have lower total costs and improve health outcomes. HCV screening and treatment would also be cost-effective in global settings with intermediate costs of drug treatment (~$8000) and a higher sustained viral response rate (70-80%).

[Cost-utility analysis of triple therapy with telaprevir in treatment-naïve hepatitis C patients]. / Análisis coste-utilidad de la triple terapia con telaprevir en pacientes con hepatitis C no tratados previamente.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of Hepatitis C (HCV) in Spain is 2,5%, with a high morbimortality rate. Triple therapy based on telaprevir plus peginterferon/ribavirin ([T/PR]) has demonstrated to be an effective approach in treatment-naïve G1-HCV patients. This analysis evaluated, through a Markov model, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of triple therapy compared to peginterferon/ ribavirin ([PR]) alone in naïve patients depending on fibrosis stage, from the Spanish Healthcare Authorities perspective. METHODS: Efficacy results and adverse events incidence were based on the combined results of ADVANCE and OPTIMIZE studies. Adverse events and disease-related costs (€, 2014) were built up from panel expert opinion except from transplant and post-transplant costs, taken from published data. Drug costs were obtained from national databases and adjusted for the mandatory deduction. Outcomes and costs were both discounted at 3%/year. RESULTS: The analysis shows higher costs and improved outcomes associated with [TR/PR] relative to [PR] alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €18,288/ QALY for all the cohort, €14,152QALY for moderate fibrosis, €11,364QALY for bridging fibrosis, €15,929/QALY for cirrhosis. Over a lifetime period, the use of [T/PR] could avoid 12 cirrhosis and 4 liver transplants per 1,000 patients compared to [PR] alone. The probabilistic analysis, following 10,000 Montecarlo simulations, demonstrated the probability of an ICER below a €30,000/QALY gained threshold of 69%. At a willingness- to-pay of €30,000/QALY, [T/PR] could be considered as an efficient option compared with [PR] alone for treatment-naïve genotype 1 HCV patients, over a lifetime horizon.

Introduccion: En España, con una prevalencia del 2,5%, la hepatitis C (VHC) se asocia a una elevada morbi-mortalidad. El tratamiento combinado de telaprevir y peginterferon/ribavirina ([T/PR]) es eficaz en pacientes con VHC-G1. El objetivo primario de este estudio fue evaluar la relación coste-utilidad (RCUI) de [T/PR] versus peginterferon alfa 2a/ribavirina ([PR]) en pacientes naïve VHC-G1, según el grado de fibrosis y bajo la perspectiva del sistema sanitario español. Metodología: La eficacia y la incidencia de efectos adversos (EAs) se obtuvieron de los estudios ADVANCE y OPTIMIZE. La estimación de los costes de monitorización, de manejo de EAs y de la enfermedad por estados de salud (€, 2014) fueron proporcionados por el panel de expertos, según bases de costes nacionales, excepto el coste de trasplante y post-trasplante obtenido de publicaciones. Se aplicó la deducción obligatoria a los costes farmacológicos (precio de venta del laboratorio). La tasa de descuento considerada para los costes y beneficios fue 3% anual. Resultados: [T/PR] proporcionó mejores resultados en salud (0,96 Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad, AVAC) y mayor coste (17.495€) comparado con [PR], resultando una RCUI de [T/PR] versus [PR] de 18.288€/AVAC para toda la cohorte, 14.152€/AVAC para fibrosis moderada, 11.364€/AVAC para fibrosis en puentes y 15.929€/AVAC para cirrosis. Considerando toda la vida del paciente, [T/PR] podría evitar 12 cirrosis y 4 trasplantes cada 1.000 pacientes. Con una RCUI inferior a 30.000€/AVAC en el 69% de las simulaciones del análisis probabilístico [T/PR] sería eficiente versus [PR] en pacientes naïve, independientemente del grado de fibrosis.

Cost utility of telaprevir-PR (peginterferon-ribavirin) versus boceprevir-PR and versus PR alone in chronic hepatitis C in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The hepatitis C virus may lead to cirrhosis, liver cancer, liver transplant, and increased mortality. With standard treatment peginterferon-alpha and ribavirin (PR), sustained viral response (SVR) was less than 50 %. SVR rates improve greatly when PR is combined with telaprevir or boceprevir. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the cost utility of telaprevir-peginterferon-ribavirin (TPR) versus PR and boceprevir-peginterferon-ribavirin (BPR) in treatment-naïve (TN) and treatment-experienced (TE) adults with chronic hepatitis C in the Netherlands. METHODS: A Markov model with a lifelong time horizon and annual cycles was developed. Clinical data stemmed from phase III trials (TPR vs PR, BPR vs PR). A mixed treatment comparison (MTC) was developed to compare TPR and BPR indirectly. Unit costs and utilities based on EQ-5D were established in a Dutch cross-sectional study. Cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was calculated according to the societal perspective. RESULTS: Treating TN patients with TPR generates 1.12 additional QALYs with €333 additional cost compared with PR, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of €299/QALY. In TE patients, TPR dominates PR with cost savings (-€7,819) and 1.63 additional QALYs. TPR dominates BPR yielding additional QALYs (0.26 in TN; 0.71 in TE) and cost savings (-€7,296, -€18,144, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: TPR seems a cost-effective alternative to PR in TN patients and dominant in TE patients. TPR was a dominant, more effective and less costly alternative to BPR in both patient types. The cost effectiveness of both TPR and BPR is well below generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds and may be considered cost effective.