Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus test-and-treat and risk reduction strategies among men who have sex with men living with HIV in France.

INTRODUCTION: Studies suggest that hepatitis C virus (HCV) micro-elimination is feasible among men who have sex with men (MSM) living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), through treatment-as-prevention and interventions aimed at reducing risk behaviours. However, their economic impact is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of HCV screening and risk reduction strategies in France. METHODS: A compartmental deterministic mathematical model was developed to describe HCV disease transmission and progression among MSM living with HIV in France. We evaluated different combinations of HCV screening frequency (every 12, 6 or 3 months) and risk reduction strategies (targeting only high-risk or all MSM) from 2021 onwards. The model simulated the number of HCV infections, life-expectancy (LYs), quality-adjusted life-expectancy (QALYs), lifetime costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime horizon (leading to an end of the simulation in 2065). RESULTS: All strategies increased QALYs, compared with current practices, that is yearly HCV screening, with no risk reduction. A behavioural intervention resulting in a 20% risk reduction in the high-risk group, together with yearly screening, was the least expensive strategy, and, therefore, cost-saving compared to current practices. The ICER per QALY gained for the strategy combining risk reduction for the high-risk group with 6-month HCV screening, compared to risk reduction with yearly screening, was €61,389. It also prevented 398 new HCV infections between 2021 and 2065, with a cost per infection averted of €37,790. All other strategies were dominated (more expensive and less effective than some other available alternative) or not cost-effective (ICER per QALY gained > €100,000). CONCLUSIONS: In the French context, current HCV screening practices without risk reduction among MSM living with HIV cannot be justified on economic grounds. Risk reduction interventions targeted to high-risk individuals-alongside screening either once or twice a year-could be cost-effective depending on the policymaker's willingness-to-pay.

The global campaign to eliminate HBV and HCV infection: International Viral Hepatitis Elimination Meeting and core indicators for development towards the 2030 elimination goals.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) affect more than 320 million people worldwide, which is more than HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria combined. Elimination of HBV and HCV will, therefore, produce substantial public health and economic benefits and, most importantly, the prevention of 1.2 million deaths per year. In 2016, member states of the World Health Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution declaring that viral hepatitis should be eliminated by 2030. Currently, few countries have elimination programmes in place and even though the tools to achieve elimination are available, the right resources, commitments and allocations are lacking. During the fifth International Viral Hepatitis Elimination Meeting (IVHEM), 7-8 December 2018, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, an expert panel of clinicians, virologists and public health specialists discussed the current status of viral hepatitis elimination programmes across multiple countries, challenges in achieving elimination and the core indicators for monitoring progress, approaches that have failed and successful elimination plans.

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.

Are targeted treatment recommendations in chronic hepatitis C tailored to diagnostic methods of fibrosis?

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The progression of chronic HCV infection varies significantly depending on patient characteristics. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the consequences of targeted and universal therapy for HCV-related morbidity-mortality based on the use of non-invasive diagnostic tests in France, Italy and the UK. METHODS: A country-specific Markov model was used to predict clinical outcomes in patients with chronic HCV mono-infection over 5years. Therapeutic strategies used in the three countries analysed: no treatment, targeted therapy based on stage of fibrosis (F2- or F3-scenario), treatment regardless of stage of fibrosis (universal analysis), base-case analysis and yearly assessments. RESULTS: Universal therapy is the most effective strategy and reduced the 5-year incidence of cirrhosis by 12.0-17.7, liver complications by 4.2-5.3 and liver deaths by 3.7-4.7, vs. no treatment. In base-case analysis, the F2-scenario using FibroScan or patented blood biomarkers reduces the 5-year incidence of cirrhosis by 2.7-4.0, liver complications by 3.5-3.7 and liver deaths by 3.3-3.7, vs. no treatment. The results of the F3-scenario are poor for the incidence of cirrhosis, and moderately effective for the liver complications. The alternative analysis with a yearly assessment of fibrosis improves the impact of targeted therapy. CONCLUSION: By quantifying the impact of different strategies of targeted therapy and universal therapy, this study could help health agencies and experts to draft therapeutic guidelines for HCV-related fibrosis. LAY SUMMARY: The impact of different treatment strategies was evaluated in three countries, France, Italy and UK, using a mathematical model. This analysis showed that: i) A prioritization strategy of HCV treatment for patients with advanced disease would decrease the overall impact of treatment on morbidity and mortality; and ii) A strategy initiating HCV treatment to all would already show a benefit in reducing 5-year morbidity and mortality.

How to optimize hepatitis C virus treatment impact on life years saved in resource-constrained countries.

UNLABELLED: In resource-constrained countries where the prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) disease is usually high, it is important to know which population should be treated first in order to increase treatment effectiveness. The aim was to estimate the effectiveness of different HCV treatment eligibility scenarios in three different countries. Using a Markov model, we estimated the number of life-years saved (LYS) with different treatment eligibility scenarios according to fibrosis stage (F1-F4 or F3-4), compared to base case (F2-F4), at a constant treatment rate, of patients between 18 and 60 years of age, at stages F0/F1 to F4, without liver complications or coinfections, chronically infected by HCV, and treated with pegylated interferon (IFN)/ribavirin or more-efficacious therapies (i.e. IFN free). We conducted the analysis in Egypt (prevalence = 14.7%; 45,000 patients treated/year), Thailand (prevalence = 2.2%; 1,000 patients treated/year), and Côte d'Ivoire (prevalence = 3%; 150 patients treated/year). In Egypt, treating F1 patients in addition to ≥F2 patients (SE1 vs. SE0) decreased LYS by 3.9%. Focusing treatment only on F3-F4 patients increased LYS by 6.7% (SE2 vs. SE0). In Thailand and Côte d'Ivoire, focusing treatment only on F3-F4 patients increased LYS by 15.3% and 11.0%, respectively, compared to treating patients ≥F2 (ST0 and SC0, respectively). Treatment only for patients at stages F3-F4 with IFN-free therapies would increase LYS by 16.7% versus SE0 in Egypt, 22.0% versus ST0 in Thailand, and 13.1% versus SC0 in Côte d'Ivoire. In this study, we did not take into account the yearly new infections and the impact of treatment on HCV transmission. CONCLUSION: Our model-based analysis demonstrates that prioritizing treatment in F3-F4 patients in resource-constrained countries is the most effective scenario in terms of LYS, regardless of treatment considered.

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.

Hepatocellular carcinoma screening in patients with compensated hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis aware of their HCV status improves survival: a modeling approach.

UNLABELLED: Because of the ongoing debate on the benefit of ultrasound (US) screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), we assessed the impact of screening on hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related compensated cirrhosis patients aware of their HCV status. A Markov model simulated progression from HCC diagnosis to death in 700 patients with HCV-related compensated cirrhosis aware of their HCV status to estimate life expectancy (LE) and cumulative death at 5 years. Five scenarios were compared: S1, no screening; S2, screening by currently existing practices (57% access and effectiveness leading to the diagnosis of 42% at Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage [BCLC-0/A]); S3, S2 with increased access (97%); S4, S2 with an efficacy of screening close to that achieved in a randomized controlled trial leading to the diagnosis of 87% of patients at stage BCLC-0/A; S5, S3+S4. The analysis was corrected for lead-time bias. Currently existing practices of HCC screening increased LE by 11 months and reduced HCC mortality at 5 years by 6% compared to no screening (P = 0.0013). Compared to current screening practices, we found that: 1) increasing the rate of access to screening would increase LE by 7 months and reduce HCC mortality at 5 years by 5% (P = 0.045); 2) optimal screening would increase LE by 14 months and reduce HCC mortality at 5 years by 9% (P = 0.0002); 3) the combination of an increased rate of access and optimal effectiveness of HCC screening would increase LE by 31 months and decrease HCC mortality at 5 years by 20% (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The present study shows that US screening for HCC in patients with compensated HCV-related cirrhosis aware of their HCV status improves survival and emphasizes the crucial role of screening effectiveness.

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.

Predicted effects of treatment for HCV infection vary among European countries.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The dynamics of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, as well as screening practices and access to therapy, vary among European countries. It is important to determine the magnitude of the effects of such differences on incidence and mortality of infection. We compared the dynamics of infection and screening and treatment practices among Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. We also assessed the effects of treatment with pegylated interferon and additional effects of triple therapy with protease inhibitors. METHODS: We created a country-specific Markov model of HCV progression based on published epidemiologic data (on HCV prevalence, screening, genotype, alcohol consumption among patients, and treatments) and reports of competitive and hepatocellular carcinoma mortality for the 6 countries. The model was used to predict the incidence of HCV-related cirrhosis and its mortality until 2021 for each country. RESULTS: From 2002 to 2011, antiviral therapy reduced the cumulative incidence of cirrhosis by 7.1% and deaths by 3.4% overall. Reductions in incidence and mortality values ranged from 4.0% and 1.9%, respectively, in Italy to 16.3% and 9.0%, respectively, in France. From 2012 to 2021, antiviral treatment of patients with HCV genotype 1 infection that includes protease inhibitor-based triple therapy will reduce the cumulative incidence of cirrhosis by 17.7% and mortality by 9.7% overall. The smallest reduction is predicted for Italy (incidence reduced by 10.1% and mortality by 5.4%) and the highest is for France (reductions of 34.3% and 20.7%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although HCV infection is treated with the same therapies in different countries, the effects of the therapies on morbidity and mortality vary significantly. In addition to common guidelines that are based on virologic response-guided therapy, there is a need for public health policies based on population-guided therapy.

Impact of hepatitis C triple therapy availability upon the number of patients to be treated and associated costs in France: a model-based analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The combination of pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN), ribavirin (RBV) and a protease inhibitor (PI) has been approved in summer 2011 for the treatment of genotype 1 (G1) hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients, with a substantially improved efficacy. The aim of this study was to estimate the number of G1 patients to be treated in France in 2012 and associated costs. METHODS: A published model of HCV and data on PEG-IFN sales were used to estimate patients needing treatment using three scenarios. (1) HCV screening rate unchanged versus 2010; proportion of treated F0-F1 patients unchanged, proportion of treated F2-F4 patients increased to the current proportion of treated F2-F4 G2/3 patients. (2) Scenario 1 but the proportion of treated F0-F1 patients increased to the current proportion of treated F0-F1 G2/3 patients. (3) Scenario 2 but a 5% increase in the HCV screening rate. To estimate cost, treatment duration was multiplied by drug unit cost. Probabilities corresponding to treatment duration were estimated based on liver fibrosis stage, treatment-naive or experienced status of the patient and virological response kinetics on treatment. RESULTS: Compared with the 5100 G1 patients treated in 2010, the number of G1 patients receiving treatment in 2012 would be 15,000 in scenario 1, 18,300 in scenario 2 and 19,400 in scenario 3, among whom 2.5-3.7% may receive PEG-IFN/RBV and 96.3-97.5% PEG-IFN/RBV+PI. Costs associated with this regimen use ranged from 497 to 638 million Euros. CONCLUSION: These model-based estimates indicate that new anti-HCV treatments may result in a three- to fourfold increase in the number of G1 patients to be treated in France in 2012.

Routine HIV screening in France: clinical impact and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: In France, roughly 40,000 HIV-infected persons are unaware of their HIV infection. Although previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in the United States, differences in both the epidemiology of infection and HIV testing behaviors warrant a setting-specific analysis for France. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We estimated the life expectancy (LE), cost and cost-effectiveness of alternative HIV screening strategies in the French general population and high-risk sub-populations using a computer model of HIV detection and treatment, coupled with French national clinical and economic data. We compared risk-factor-based HIV testing ("current practice") to universal routine, voluntary HIV screening in adults aged 18-69. Screening frequencies ranged from once to annually. Input data included mean age (42 years), undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.10%), annual HIV incidence (0.01%), test acceptance (79%), linkage to care (75%) and cost/test (€43). We performed sensitivity analyses on HIV prevalence and incidence, cost estimates, and the transmission benefits of ART. "Current practice" produced LEs of 242.82 quality-adjusted life months (QALM) among HIV-infected persons and 268.77 QALM in the general population. Adding a one-time HIV screen increased LE by 0.01 QALM in the general population and increased costs by €50/person, for a cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of €57,400 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). More frequent screening in the general population increased survival, costs and CERs. Among injection drug users (prevalence 6.17%; incidence 0.17%/year) and in French Guyana (prevalence 0.41%; incidence 0.35%/year), annual screening compared to every five years produced CERs of €51,200 and €46,500/QALY. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: One-time routine HIV screening in France improves survival compared to "current practice" and compares favorably to other screening interventions recommended in Western Europe. In higher-risk groups, more frequent screening is economically justifiable.

Targeted vs. systematic early antiviral treatment against A(H1N1)v influenza with neuraminidase inhibitors in patients with influenza-like symptoms: clinical and economic impact.

Capitalizing on available data, we used a decision model to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes associated with early initiation of treatment with neuraminidase inhibitors in all patients with influenza-like illnesses ( ILI ) (systematic strategy) vs. only those at high risk of complications (targeted strategy). Systematic treatment of ILI during an A(H1N1)v influenza epidemic wave is both effective and cost-effective. Patients who present to care with ILI during an A(H1N1)v influenza epidemic wave should initiate treatment with neuraminidase inhibitors, regardless of risk status. Administering neuraminidase inhibitors between epidemic waves, when the probability of influenza is low, is less effective and cost-effective.

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.