Cost-effectiveness analysis of Daclatasvir/Sofosbuvir for the treatment of the HCV patients failed after the first line with second generation of DAAs in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Daclatasvir (DCV) combinated with Sofosbuvir (SOF) has shown good efficacy and safety profile for HCV patients. The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DCV/SOF regimen versus HCV alternative treatments for patients who failed to achieve the SVR12 after a first DAA treatment from Italian perspective (PITER cohort). METHODS: A Markov model of HCV chronically infected patients was used to develop two scenarios: 1) DCV+ SOF versus Ledipasvir (LDV)+ SOF in Genotype (Gt)1 and Gt4; 2) DCV+ SOF versus no retreatment option in Gt1, Gt3, and Gt4. The percentage of patients who failed the first line with SOF/Simeprevir/Ribavirin (RBV) or SOF/RBV and were retreated or not according to evidences from PITER cohort, were used to populate the model. HCV resources consumption and SVR rates were quantified using PITER data. Transition probabilities and utility rates were derived from the literature. The outcomes were expressed in terms of Quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of € 30,000/QALY. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, DCV+ SOF represents a cost-effectiveness therapy with ICERs lower than the threshold. The PSA showed robust results, ICERs remain below the threshold in 94% and 99% simulations in Scenario 1 and 2, respectively.

Economic evaluation of Zepatier for the management of HCV in the Italian scenario.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a major health issue worldwide. New generation of direct-active antiviral medications is an epoch-making turning point in the management of HCV infections. OBJECTIVE: Conducing a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the combination of elbasvir/grazoprevir and sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin for the management of all HCV patients (even those in the initial stages of fibrosis). METHODS: A Markov model was built on the natural history of the disease to assess the efficacy of the alternatives. The outcomes are expressed in terms of quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and result in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). RESULTS: Elbasvir/grazoprevir implies an expenditure of €21,104,253.74 with a gain of 19,287.90 QALYs and sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin implies an expenditure of €31,904,410.11 with a gain of 18,855.96 QALYs. Elbasvir/grazoprevir is thus a dominant strategy. CONCLUSION: Consideration should be given to the opportunity cost of not treating patients with a lower degree of fibrosis (F0-F2).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lesinurad/Allopurinol Versus Febuxostat for the Management of Gout/Hyperuricemia in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Until very recently the only therapeutic alternative for the management of patients affected by gout/hyperuricemia that did not respond to a first-line treatment based on allopurinol alone or who cannot tolerate allopurinol was febuxostat, a xanthine oxidase non-purine-selective inhibitor. Lately, however, a new therapeutic alternative has become available for the management of this pathology: lesinurad, a urate transporter inhibitor. OBJECTIVE: To objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of lesinurad/allopurinol in comparison with febuxostat as a second-line therapeutic strategy for the management of patients affected by gout and hyperuricemia that did not respond to a first-line therapy based on allopurinol alone. METHODS: A Markov model was built based on the natural history of the pathology; patients entered the model according to their level of serum uric acid concentration and flowed across it according to their response to the therapy. The analysis was carried out considering the perspective of the Italian National Health Service on a lifetime horizon and 6-month cycles. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at a 3.5% yearly rate. The results of the model were expressed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Both a one-way and a multi-way Monte-Carlo analysis were carried out in order to check the robustness of the results achieved. RESULTS: The ICER derived from the comparison was equal to €77.53/QALY on the lifetime horizon, as there was a higher level of costs associated with the combination as compared with febuxostat (€10,658.27 vs. €10,645.87, for a differential of €12.40) and a higher level of QALYs achieved (7.77 vs. 7.61, for a differential of 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: The lesinurad/allopurinol combination is recommended for the treatment of patients affected by gout/hyperuricemia in the Italian Health System as it appears to be cost effective and thus sustainable for the Italian healthcare sector.

Economic Analysis and Budget Impact of Tenofovir and Entecavir in the First-Line Treatment of Hepatitis B Virus in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis B is a common, progressive disease, particularly when viral replication is detected. Oral antivirals can suppress viral replication and prevent or delay the development of cirrhosis and liver-related complications. The treatments of chronic hepatitis B cannot totally cure the disease but can prevent its progression to hepatocellular carcinoma, decreasing the levels of both morbidity and mortality. To date, there are several therapies indicated by the international guidelines as first-line treatments for the management of hepatitis B; two of the most effective are those based on either tenofovir or entecavir. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tenofovir and entecavir in the treatment of naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B. The two treatments are compared with the "no treatment" and to one another. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model; patients entered one of the following health states: chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis (compensated or decompensated), hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation or death. The analysis was carried out from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service by considering a life-time horizon with cycles lasting 1 year and with costs and QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) discounted at a rate of 3.5%. The results of the model were analysed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: ICERs for tenofovir and entecavir emerging from the comparison versus "no treatment" were equal to €10,274.73 and €16,300.44 per QALY gained, respectively, on the life-time horizon. Tenofovir was dominant in the direct comparison with entecavir, indicating more QALYs and a lower consumption of resources. The Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated that in 97% (tenofovir) and in 85% (entecavir) of the scenarios performed, the cost per QALY fell below the threshold of €30,000/QALY. The budget impact analysis showed savings for tenofovir amounting to 33% compared to entecavir in the first year on treatment and to 31% in following years. CONCLUSIONS: Entecavir and tenofovir are recommended for the treatment of patients with chronic Hepatitis B in the Italian Health System. In particular, tenofovir appeared to be the more cost-effective drug for the management of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections. These results could help decision makers and clinicians to address their decision when choosing a first-line treatment for the management of people affected by chronic HBV.

Clinical and laboratory parameters in fixed prosthodontic treatment.

Prosthodontic treatment demands competence from each member of the professional team; this includes the staff of the dental office and the dental laboratory. Members of the dental team should understand their responsibility to each other and their patients to ensure optimal prosthodontic care. Knowledge of individual limitations are critical, as are two specific attributes of technical success, quality and communication. The dentist and dental technician should provide services in concert, practice mutual respect, and encourage each other to critique results. Successful prosthodontic treatment also represents a collaborative effort between the patient and attending dentist. Because specific limitations exist with various treatment options, patients need to make decisions concerning their treatment on the basis of detailed informed consent comprehensively presented by the dentist. This article illustrates examples of fixed prosthodontic treatments and demonstrates collaborative, professional responsibilities of the dentist and dental laboratory technicians.