Optimizing patient referral and center capacity in the management of chronic hepatitis C: Lessons from the Italian experience.

AIMS: In 2017 the Italian Drug Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA) revised the criteria for access to therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C as part of a three-year plan to eradicate HCV. We conducted a Delphi study to determine strategies to identify and treat patients with HCV and to develop through a shared pathway, a model to manage patient referral and optimize prescription center capacity with the overall aim of increasing access to therapy. METHODS: The process took place in two phases - Phase I (January 2017), before the criteria for treatment of HCV were revised and Phase II (May 2017) when AIFA developed a framework for the eradication of HCV infection in Italy. Two questionnaires were devised with Q1 administered in Phase I and Q2 in Phase II. RESULTS: Q1 was sent to 823 hepatitis specialists working in 235 Italian HCV centers authorized to prescribe direct-acting antiviral drugs (DAAs). Overall, 167 centers (71%) participated with a good geographical representativeness (North 69%, Centre 74%; South and islands 70%). 548 prescribers (68.8%) provided responses to Q1 and 443 (80%) specialists who responded to Q1 completed Q2. Over 70% considered that to meet the new therapy targets local/regional networks need to be consolidated and reinforced with GPs providing the 'missing link' in current regional networks. Adherence to therapy was considered important by 75% of clinicians with reduction in follow-up intervals/length considered important by 65% - to free up staff/resources to manage increasing numbers of new patients. About 80% of respondents stated that medical personnel were principally involved in follow-up with follow-up having a significant impact on center capacity. CONCLUSION: Enhancing patient referral, the need for an increased role of GPs, increasing center capacity in particular medical personnel in outpatient centers and greater liaison between Hub centers and healthcare professionals currently managing high-risk groups as yet untreated, were factors that need to be streamlined in order to meet treatment targets for eradication of HCV.

Real life experiences in HCV management in 2018.

INTRODUCTION: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a major cause of chronic liver disease, with approximately 71 million chronically infected individuals worldwide. Treatment of chronic hepatitis C has considerably improved in the last few years thanks to the introduction of direct-acting antivirals able to achieve sustained virological response in more than 95% of patients. Successful anti-HCV treatment can halt liver disease progression and solve the HCV-related extra-hepatic manifestations, eventually reducing liver-related and overall mortality. Areas covered: With the aim to respond to unmet needs in patient's identification, universal access to antiviral therapy and treatment optimization in specific setting of HCV-infected patients, a group of Italian experts met in Stresa in May 2018. The summary of the considerations arising from this meeting and the final statements are reported in this paper. Expert commentary: All the advances on HCV cure may have a real clinical impact not only in individual patients but also at the social health level if they are applied to all infected patients, independently from the stage of liver disease. Further improvements are needed in order to attain HCV elimination, such as the development of an enhanced screening program working in parallel to the present treatment options.

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.

Modeling cost-effectiveness and health gains of a "universal" versus "prioritized" hepatitis C virus treatment policy in a real-life cohort.

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of two alternative direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment policies in a real-life cohort of hepatitis C virus-infected patients: policy 1, "universal," treat all patients, regardless of fibrosis stage; policy 2, treat only "prioritized" patients, delay treatment of the remaining patients until reaching stage F3. A liver disease progression Markov model, which used a lifetime horizon and health care system perspective, was applied to the PITER cohort (representative of Italian hepatitis C virus-infected patients in care). Specifically, 8,125 patients naive to DAA treatment, without clinical, sociodemographic, or insurance restrictions, were used to evaluate the policies' cost-effectiveness. The patients' age and fibrosis stage, assumed DAA treatment cost of €15,000/patient, and the Italian liver disease costs were used to evaluate quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of policy 1 versus policy 2. To generalize the results, a European scenario analysis was performed, resampling the study population, using the mean European country-specific health states costs and mean treatment cost of €30,000. For the Italian base-case analysis, the cost-effective ICER obtained using policy 1 was €8,775/QALY. ICERs remained cost-effective in 94%-97% of the 10,000 probabilistic simulations. For the European treatment scenario the ICER obtained using policy 1 was €19,541.75/QALY. ICER was sensitive to variations in DAA costs, in the utility value of patients in fibrosis stages F0-F3 post-sustained virological response, and in the transition probabilities from F0 to F3. The ICERs decrease with decreasing DAA prices, becoming cost-saving for the base price (€15,000) discounts of at least 75% applied in patients with F0-F2 fibrosis. CONCLUSION: Extending hepatitis C virus treatment to patients in any fibrosis stage improves health outcomes and is cost-effective; cost-effectiveness significantly increases when lowering treatment prices in early fibrosis stages. (Hepatology 2017;66:1814-1825).

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.

Sequential algorithms combining non-invasive markers and biopsy for the assessment of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B.

AIM: To assess the performance of several non-invasive markers and of our recently proposed stepwise combination algorithms to diagnose significant fibrosis (F > or = 2 by METAVIR) and cirrhosis (F4 by METAVIR) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB). METHODS: One hundred and ten consecutive patients (80 males, 30 females, mean age: 42.6 +/- 11.3) with CHB undergoing diagnostic liver biopsy were included. AST-to-Platelet ratio (APRI), Fornso index, AST-to-ALT Ratio, Goteborg University Cirrhosis Index (GUCI), Hui's model and Fibrotest were measured on the day of liver biopsy. The performance of these methods and of sequential algorithms combining Fibrotest, APRI and biopsy was defined by positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, accuracy and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: PPV for significant fibrosis was excellent (100%) with Forns and high (> 92%) with APRI, GUCI, Fibrotest and Hui. However, significant fibrosis could not be excluded by any marker (NPV < 65%). Fibrotest had the best PPV and NPV for cirrhosis (87% and 90%, respectively). Fibrotest showed the best AUC for both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis (0.85 and 0.76, respectively). Stepwise combination algorithms of APRI, Fibrotest and biopsy showed excellent performance (0.96 AUC, 100% NPV) for significant fibrosis and 0.95 AUC, 98% NPV for cirrhosis, with 50%-80% reduced need for liver biopsy. CONCLUSION: In CHB sequential combination of APRI, Fibrotest and liver biopsy greatly improves the diagnostic performance of the single non-invasive markers. Need for liver biopsy is reduced by 50%-80% but cannot be completely avoided. Non-invasive markers and biopsy should be considered as agonists and not antagonists towards the common goal of estimating liver fibrosis.

Cost effectiveness of peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin versus interferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin as initial therapy for treatment-naive chronic hepatitis C.

INTRODUCTION: In adults with previously untreated chronic hepatitis C (CHC), the combination of peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin produces a higher rate of sustained virological response (SVR) than interferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin, but it is still unproven whether this increase is cost effective. The objective of this study was to determine if the gain in SVR with peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin is worth the incremental cost. METHODS: We constructed a Markov model of disease progression in which cohorts of patients received peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin or interferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin for 48 weeks (hepatitis C virus [HCV] genotype 1 and non-1 patients with fibrosis) or 24 weeks (genotype non-1 patients without fibrosis), and were followed for their expected lifetimes. The reference patient was a 45-year-old male with CHC without cirrhosis. The SVRs with peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin and interferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin used to populate the model were 46% and 36% for patients infected with HCV genotype 1 and 76% and 61% for patients infected with HCV non-1 genotypes, respectively. QOL and costs for each health state were based on literature estimates and on Italian treatment patterns. Costs were in 2002 euros and benefits were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses on key clinical and economic parameters were performed. The analysis was reported from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. RESULTS: In patients infected with HCV genotype 1, peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin increased life-years (LYs) by 0.78 years and QALYs by 0.67 years, compared with interferon alpha-2b and ribavirin. The incremental cost per LY and QALY gained was euro9433 and euro10 894, respectively. In patients infected with HCV non-1 genotypes, peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin increased LYs by 1.17 and QALY by 1.01 years, compared with interferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin. The incremental cost per LY and QALY gained was euro3261 and euro3766, respectively. Using genotype distribution estimates, the weighted average ICER for all genotypes was euro6811 per LY gained and euro7865 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Our model suggests that peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin is cost effective compared with conventional interferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin for treatment of naive adults with CHC, regardless of HCV genotype, under a wide range of assumptions regarding treatment effectiveness and costs.