Assessing the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C screening strategies in France.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In Europe, hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening still targets people at high risk of infection. We aim to determine the cost-effectiveness of expanded HCV screening in France. METHODS: A Markov model simulated chronic hepatitis C (CHC) prevalence, incidence of events, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the French general population, aged 18 to 80 years, undiagnosed for CHC for different strategies: S1 = current strategy targeting the at risk population; S2 = S1 and all men between 18 and 59 years; S3 = S1 and all individuals between 40 and 59 years; S4 = S1 and all individuals between 40 and 80 years; S5 = all individuals between 18 and 80 years (universal screening). Once CHC was diagnosed, treatment was initiated either to patients with fibrosis stage ≥F2 or regardless of fibrosis. Data were extracted from published literature, a national prevalence survey, and a previously published mathematical model. ICER were interpreted based on one or three times French GDP per capita (€32,800). RESULTS: Universal screening led to the lowest prevalence of CHC and incidence of events, regardless of treatment initiation. When considering treatment initiation to patients with fibrosis ≥F2, targeting all people aged 40-80 was the only cost-effective strategy at both thresholds (€26,100/QALY). When we considered treatment for all, although universal screening of all individuals aged 18-80 is associated with the highest costs, it is more effective than targeting all people aged 40-80, and cost-effective at both thresholds (€31,100/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: In France, universal screening is the most effective screening strategy for HCV. Universal screening is cost-effective when treatment is initiated regardless of fibrosis stage. From an individual and especially from a societal perspective of HCV eradication, this strategy should be implemented. LAY SUMMARY: In the context of highly effective and well tolerated therapies for hepatitis C virus that are now recommended for all patients, a reassessment of hepatitis C screening strategies is needed. An effectiveness and cost-effectiveness study of different strategies targeting either the at-risk population, specific ages or all individuals was performed. In France, universal screening is the most effective strategy and is cost-effective when treatment is initiated regardless of fibrosis stage. From an individual and especially from a societal perspective of hepatitis C virus eradication, this strategy should be implemented.

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.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of immediate versus delayed treatment of hepatitis C virus-infected patients in a country with limited resources: the case of Egypt.

BACKGROUND: Because of logistical and economic issues, in Egypt, as in other resource-limited settings, decision makers should determine for which patients hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment should be prioritized. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different treatment initiation strategies. METHODS: Using a Markov model, we simulated HCV disease in chronically infected patients in Egypt, to compare lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of different treatment initiation strategies. RESULTS: Immediate treatment of patients at stages F1/F2/F3 was less expensive and more effective than delaying treatment until more severe stages or not providing treatment (in patients diagnosed at F1: QALE = 18.32 years if treatment at F1 vs 18.22 if treatment at F2). Treatment of F4 patients was more effective than no treatment at all (QALE = 10.33 years vs 8.77 years) and was cost-effective (ICER = $1915/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). When considering that affordable triple therapies, including new direct-acting antivirals, will be available starting in 2016, delaying treatment until stage F2, then treating all patients regardless of their disease stage after 2016, was found to be cost-effective (ICER = $33/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: In Egypt, immediate treatment of patients with fibrosis stage F1-F3 who present to care is less expensive and more effective than delaying treatment. However, immediate treatment at stage F1 is only slightly more effective than waiting for disease to progress to stage F2 before starting treatment and is sensitive to the forthcoming availability of new treatments. Treating patients at stage F4 is highly effective and cost-effective. In Egypt, decision makers should prioritize treatment for F4 patients and delay treatment for F1 patients who present to care.

Impact of emerging hepatitis C virus treatments on future needs for liver transplantation in France: a modelling approach.

BACKGROUND: In light of the impact of emerging hepatitis C virus treatments on morbidity and mortality, we sought to determine whether candidates for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma and decompensated cirrhosis will decrease sufficiently to match liver grafts for hepatitis C virus-infected patients. AIMS: Using a Markov model, we quantified future liver graft needs for hepatitis C virus-induced diseases and estimated the impact of current and emerging treatments. METHODS: We simulated progression of yearly-hepatitis-C-virus-infected cohorts from the beginning of the epidemic and calculated 2013-2022 candidates for liver transplantation up until 2022 without and with therapies. We compared these estimated numbers to projected trends in liver grafts for hepatitis C virus. RESULTS: Overall, current treatment would avoid transplantation of 4425 (4183-4684) potential candidates during the period 2013-2022. It would enable an 88% and 42% reduction in the gap between liver transplantation activity and candidates for hepatocellular carcinoma and decompensated cirrhosis, respectively. Emerging hepatitis C virus treatments would allow adequacy in transplant activities for hepatocellular carcinoma. However, they would not lead to adequacy in decompensated cirrhosis from 2013 to 2022. Results were robust to sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that patients will benefit from public health policies regarding hepatitis C virus screening and therapeutic access to new emerging treatments.

Impact of viral eradication on mortality related to hepatitis C: a modeling approach in France.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In France, two recent studies enabled modeling of the impact of viral eradication on HCV mortality. METHODS: The French HCV population was simulated from infection to death using a computer-based model. We took into account the impact of alcohol, present screening and antiviral therapy to predict 2006--2025 HCV mortality and to assess the impact of viral eradication. RESULTS: In 2006, the model estimated that among HCV-RNA+, 55% were F0-F1, 18% F2, 22% F3-F4 and 6% had liver complications. The mortality ratio was 11-fold higher in alcoholic patients 40-65 years old. Current therapy will save 14,400 (95% CI, 13,900-15,000) lives compared to absence of therapy. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main results. Contrary to guidelines, if patients F<2 were treated in the same proportions as those with F> or = 2,700 (95% CI, 700-750) lives would be saved. If screening were to reach 75% in 2010, 4 years earlier than model expectation, 950 (95% CI, 900-1000) lives would be saved. If a new molecule improving eradication for genotype 1/4 by 40% were to become available in 2010, 1500 (95% CI, 1400-1600) lives would be saved. CONCLUSIONS: Current therapy is reducing HCV mortality. Therapeutic guidelines must take into account their impact on HCV mortality.