Disease burden and economic impact of diagnosed non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2018.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) - a progressive subset of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) - is a chronic liver disease that can progress to advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, and end-stage liver disease (ESLD) if left untreated. Early-stage NASH is usually asymptomatic, meaning a large proportion of the prevalent population are undiagnosed. Receiving a NASH diagnosis increases the probability that a patient will receive interventions for the purpose of managing their condition. The purpose of this study was to estimate the disease burden and economic impact of diagnosed NASH in the United Kingdom (UK) adult population in 2018. METHODS: The socioeconomic burden of diagnosed NASH from a societal perspective was estimated using cost-of-illness methodology applying a prevalence approach. This involved estimating the number of adults with diagnosed NASH in the UK in a base period (2018) and the economic and wellbeing costs attributable to diagnosed NASH in that period. The analysis was based on a targeted review of the scientific literature, existing databases and consultation with clinical experts, health economists and patient groups. RESULTS: Of the prevalent NASH population in the UK in 2018, an estimated 79.8% were not diagnosed. In particular, of the prevalent population in disease stages F0 to F2, only 2.0% (F0), 2.0% (F1) and 16.5% (F2), respectively, were diagnosed. Total economic costs of diagnosed NASH in the UK ranged from £2.3 billion (lower prevalence scenario, base probability of diagnosis scenario) to £4.2 billion (higher prevalence scenario, base probability of diagnosis scenario). In 2018, people with NASH in the UK were estimated to experience 94,094 to 174,564 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) overall. Total wellbeing costs associated with NASH in 2018 were estimated to range between £5.6 to £10.5 billion. CONCLUSION: The prevention and appropriate management of adult NASH patients could result in reduced economic costs and improvements in wellbeing.

Disease burden and economic impact of diagnosed non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in five European countries in 2018: A cost-of-illness analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a chronic disease that can progress to end-stage liver disease (ESLD). A large proportion of early-stage NASH patients remain undiagnosed compared to those with advanced fibrosis, who are more likely to receive disease management interventions. This study estimated the disease burden and economic impact of diagnosed NASH in the adult population of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom in 2018. METHODS: The socioeconomic burden of diagnosed NASH was estimated using cost-of-illness methodology applying a prevalence approach to estimate the number of adults with NASH and the attributable economic and wellbeing costs. Given undiagnosed patients do not incur costs in the study, the probability of diagnosis is central to cost estimation. The analysis was based on a literature review, databases and consultation with clinical experts, economists and patient groups. RESULTS: The proportion of adult NASH patients with a diagnosis ranged from 11.9% to 12.7% across countries, which increased to 38.8%-39.1% for advanced fibrosis (F3-F4 compensated cirrhosis). Total economic costs were €8548-19 546M. Of these, health system costs were €619-1292M. Total wellbeing costs were €41 536-90 379M. The majority of the undiagnosed population (87.3%-88.2% of total prevalence) was found to have early-stage NASH, which, left untreated, may progress to more resource consuming ESLD over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the majority of economic and wellbeing costs of NASH are experienced in late disease stages. Earlier diagnosis and care of NASH patients could reduce future healthcare costs.

Cost-utility analysis of sofosbuvir for the treatment of genotype 2 chronic hepatitis C in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: Across Japan, around 2 million people are infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) with long-term complications such as cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver transplant (LT). Current treatment options have several limitations due to side effects, interferon intolerability and ineligibility, long treatment durations and low sustained virological responses (SVR) rates, especially for the most severe patients. Sofosbuvir (SOF) is the first nucleotide analog NS5B polymerase inhibitor with pan-genotypic activity. SOF, administered in combination with ribavirin (RBV) with or without pegylated interferon (PEGIFN) resulted in high SVR rates across genotype (GT) 1-6 patients. It is also the first available regimen for patients that are unsuitable for interferon. This analysis assessed the cost-utility ratio of sofosbuvir in GT2 patients in Japan. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov model followed a cohort of 10,000 GT2 patients until patients reached 100 years of age. Approximately 20% of patients initiated treatment at the cirrhotic stage. Comparators were based on the current recommendations in Japan, including PEGIFN with ribavirin (RBV), telaprevir (TVR) in combination with PEGIFN + RBV and no treatment. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 2%. RESULTS: Sofosbuvir was cost-effective across all the studied indications, especially in patients unsuitable for interferon, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) lower than JPY 5,000,000. Compared to the other treatments included in the analysis, SOF + RBV resulted in improved clinical outcomes. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: SOF combined with RBV was shown to be cost-effective in GT2 patients in Japan. Compared to PEGIFN + RBV, TVR + PEGIFN + RBV and no treatment SOF offers a more efficacious, shorter and better tolerated treatment option and extends treatment to reach HCV-infected patients who are ineligible for interferon-based regimens. Although adverse events were not included in the analyses, this would not make any changes to our conclusion.

Cost-utility analysis of vortioxetine versus agomelatine, bupropion SR, sertraline and venlafaxine XR after treatment switch in major depressive disorder in Finland.

BACKGROUND: To assess the cost-utility of vortioxetine versus relevant comparators (agomelatine, bupropion SR, sertraline, and venlafaxine XR) in the finnish setting in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with inadequate response to selective serotonin- /serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. METHODS: A one-year analysis was conducted using a decision tree with a Markov state transition component. The health states were remission, relapse and recovery. A Finnish healthcare payer perspective was adopted. RESULTS: Vortioxetine was less costly and more effective versus all comparators in both direct and societal perspectives. Vortioxetine reduced the average annual direct costs by 4% versus venlafaxine XR and 8% versus sertraline. The greater efficacy associated with vortioxetine was translated into a higher percentage of patients in remission and recovery. The model was most sensitive to changes in remission rates at 8 weeks. CONCLUSION: This cost-utility analysis showed vortioxetine to be a good alternative for MDD patients switching therapy in Finland.

Cost-utility analysis of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir for the treatment of genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: Hepatitis C is the result of a ribonucleic acid (RNA) virus (hepatitis C virus; HCV). The Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) estimated that 1.5-2 million people in Japan carry HCV. Six major HCV genotypes (GT) and a large number of subtypes have been described in the literature. In Japan, around 70% to 80% of people are infected with HCV genotype 1b. The progress of the disease primarily affects the liver and may lead to liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and death. Sofosbuvir (SOF) is a nucleotide analogue NS5B inhibitor and ledipasvir (LDV) is an inhibitor of the HCV NS5A protein. They are combined in a single tablet regimen for the treatment of GT1 patients and resulted in sustained virological response (SVR) above 94% in large phase III trials. This analysis assesses the cost-utility of LDV/SOF in GT1 patients in Japan. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cohort of 10,000 patients was followed through a Markov model until they reached 100 years of age. GT1 treatment-naïve and experienced, non-cirrhotic and cirrhotic patients were studied separately. LDV/SOF was compared to several treatment regimens containing pegylated interferon (PEGIFN), telaprevir (TVR), simeprevir (SMV), daclatasvir (DCV), asunaprevir (ASV) and ribavirin (RBV). Discount rates of 2% were applied to costs and outcomes according to the Japanese guidelines. RESULTS: LDV/SOF was cost-effective against most comparators with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below JPY 5,000,000. By applying a societal perspective, LDV/SOF was the dominant treatment strategy in all cases. Moreover, LDV/SOF reduced the number of cases of advanced liver disease. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: LDV/SOF was cost-effective compared to most of the currently recommended treatments. Furthermore, LDV/SOF extends treatments to HCV-infected patients who are ineligible for interferon and RBV-based regimens. LDV/SOF thus has the potential to help reduce the burden of HCV in Japan.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir compared to current standard treatment in Swiss patients with chronic hepatitis C.

In clinical trials, sofosbuvir showed high antiviral activity in patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) across all genotypes. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based treatment compared to current standard treatment in mono-infected patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) genotypes 1-4 in Switzerland. Cost-effectiveness was modelled from the perspective of the Swiss health care system using a lifetime Markov model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) used an endpoint of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Treatment characteristics, quality of life, and transition probabilities were obtained from published literature. Country-specific model inputs such as patient characteristics, mortality and costs were obtained from Swiss sources. We performed extensive sensitivity analyses. Costs and effects were discounted at 3% (range: 0-5%) per year. Sofosbuvir-containing treatment in mixed cohorts of cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients with CHC genotypes 1-4 showed ICERs between CHF 10,337 and CHF 91,570 per QALY gained. In subgroup analyses, sofosbuvir dominated telaprevir- and boceprevir-containing treatment in treatment-naïve genotype 1 cirrhotic patients. ICERs of sofosbuvir were above CHF 100,000 per QALY in treatment-naïve, interferon eligible, non-cirrhotic patients infected with genotypes 2 or 3. In deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, results were generally robust. From a Swiss health care system perspective, treatment of mixed cohorts of cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients with CHC genotypes 1-4 with sofosbuvir-containing treatment versus standard treatment would be cost-effective if a threshold of CHF 100,000 per QALY was assumed.

Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin with or without pegylated interferon for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: Across Italy up to 7.3% of the population is infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), with long-term complications resulting in high medical costs and significant morbidity and mortality. Current treatment options have limitations due to side effects, interferon intolerability and ineligibility, long treatment durations and low sustained virological response (SVR) rates, especially for the most severe patients). Sofosbuvir is the first nucleotide polymerase inhibitor with pan-genotypic activity. Sofosbuvir, administered with ribavirin (RBV) and with or without pegylated interferon (PEG-INF), resulted in >90% SVR across treatment-naïve (TN) genotype (GT) 1-6 patients. It is also the first treatment option for patients that are unsuitable for interferon (UI). This analysis evaluates the cost - effectiveness of sofosbuvir for GTs 1-6 in Italy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov model followed a cohort of 10,000 patients until they reached 80 years old. Approximately 20% of naïve and 30% of experienced patients initiated treatment at the cirrhosis stage. Comparators included PEG-INF + RBV for all GTs and plus telaprevir or boceprevir for GT1, or no treatment. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% and the cost perspective was that of the National Health Service in Italy. RESULTS: Sofosbuvir was cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below €40,000/QALY in all patient populations, particularly in cirrhotic patients. The exception was for a mixed cohort of GT2 TN patients where the ICER was €68,500/QALY and for a cirrhotic cohort of GT4/5/6 where the ICER was €68,434/QALY. Nevertheless, the prevalence of HCV in this patient population is expected to be low. Results were robust to sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Sofosbuvir-based regimens are cost-effective in Italy, particular for the most severe patients. The interferon-free regimens are a real treatment option for UI patients. The high cure rates of this breakthrough treatment are expected to substantially reduce the burden of HCV in Italy.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon alpha and ribavirin in previously untreated chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients.

BACKGROUND: Telaprevir (T, TVR) is a direct-acting antiviral (DAA) used for the treatment of genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The sustained virological response (SVR) rates, i.e., undetectable HCV RNA levels 24 weeks after the end of treatment, is what differentiate treatments. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TVR combined with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) alfa-2a plus ribavirin (RBV), with Peg-IFN and RBV (PR) alone or with boceprevir (B, BOC) plus Peg-IFN alfa-2b and RBV, in naïve patients. METHODS: A Markov cohort model of chronic HCV disease progression reflected the pathway of naïve patients initiating anti-HCV therapy. SVR rates were derived from a mixed-treatment comparison including results from Phase II and III trials of TVR and BOC, and trials comparing both PR regimens. SVR has significant impact on survival, quality-of-life, and costs. Incremental cost per life year (LY) gained and quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained were computed at lifetime, adopting the (National Health Service) NHS perspective. Cost and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Sub-group analyses were also performed by interleukin (IL)-28B genotype and fibrosis stage. RESULTS: Higher costs and improved outcomes were associated with T/PR relative to PR alone, resulting in an ICER of £12,733 per QALY gained. T/PR retained a significant SVR advantage over PR alone and was cost-effective regardless of IL-28B genotype and fibrosis stages. T/PR regimen 'dominated' B/PR, generating 0.2 additional QALYs and reducing lifetime cost by £2758. Sensitivity analyses consistently resulted in ICERs less than £30,000/QALY for the T/PR regimen over PR alone. LIMITATIONS: No head-to-head trial provides direct evidence of better efficacy of T/PR vs B/PR. CONCLUSION: The introduction of TVR-based therapy for genotype 1 HCV patients is cost-effective for naïve patients at the £30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, regardless of IL-28B genotype or fibrosis stage.

Cost-effectiveness of telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon alpha and ribavirin in treatment-experienced chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients.

BACKGROUND: Telaprevir (TVR,T) and boceprevir (BOC,B) are direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) used for the treatment of chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TVR combined with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) alfa-2a plus ribavirin (RBV) compared with Peg-IFN alfa-2a and RBV (PR) alone or BOC plus Peg-IFN alfa-2b and RBV in treatment-experienced patients. METHODS: A Markov cohort model of chronic genotype 1 HCV disease progression reflected the pathway of experienced patients retreated with DAA therapy. The population was stratified by previous response to treatment (i.e., previous relapsers, partial responders, and null responders). Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates were derived from a mixed-treatment comparison that included results from separate Phase III trials of TVR and BOC. Incremental cost per life year (LY) gained and quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained were computed at lifetime, adopting the NHS perspective. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Sub-group analyses were carried out by interleukin (IL)-28B genotype. RESULTS: Higher costs and improved outcomes were associated with T/PR relative to PR alone for all experienced patients (ICER of £6079). T/PR was cost-effective for each sub-group population with high SVR advantage in relapsers (ICER of £2658 vs £7593 and £20,875 for partial and null responders). T/PR remained cost-effective regardless of IL-28B sub-type. Compared to B/PR, T/PR prolonged QALYs by 0.57 and reduced lifetime costs by £13,960 for relapsers. For partial responders T/PR was less costly but less efficacious than B/PR, equating to an ICER of £128,117 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: No head-to-head trial provides direct evidence of better efficacy of T/PR vs B/PR. CONCLUSION: T/PR is cost-effective compared with PR alone in experienced patients regardless of treatment history and IL-28B genotype. Compared to B/PR, T/PR is always cost-saving but only more effective in relapsers.

Cost-effectiveness of highly purified omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid ethyl esters in the treatment of chronic heart failure: results of Markov modelling in a UK setting.

AIMS: A recent randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial has reported reductions in mortality and hospitalizations in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) who were prescribed highly purified omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid ethyl esters (n-3 PUFA). This study aimed at evaluating the cost and benefits associated with their use in the treatment of CHF in a UK setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Results from a recent clinical trial were used to develop a Markov model to project clinical outcomes while capturing relevant costs and patient quality of life. The model captured outcomes over a lifetime horizon from a UK National Health Service perspective, with direct costs accounted in 2009 GBP (£) and discounted at 3.5% together with clinical benefits. Results are presented in terms of life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, direct costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. In addition to standard therapy, n-3 PUFA vs. placebo increased lifetime direct costs by £993 (≈€1150), with additional quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.079 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and mean lifetime costs of £12,636 (≈€14,600) per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested a 60% likelihood of n-3 PUFA being regarded as cost-effective versus placebo at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 (≈€34,600) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: By currently accepted standards of value for money in the UK; the addition of n-3 PUFA to optimal medical therapy for patients with heart failure is likely to be cost-effective.