Cost-effectiveness of boceprevir co-administration versus pegylated interferon-α2b and ribavirin only for patients with hepatitis C genotype 1 in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: Patients infected with chronic HCV genotype 1 experience liver complications as the disease progresses. This study aims to project the long-term reduction of liver complications and cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies, including co-administrating boceprevir (BOC) with pegylated interferon-α2b (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin compared with standard of care (SOC) of PEG-IFN and ribavirin only. METHODS: A Markov model was created to estimate the expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with treatment strategies outlined in the BOC package insert in Singapore. Patient characteristics were from pivotal trials, the transition probabilities and QALYs were estimated from publications, and the pharmaceutical and health status costs were obtained from a public hospital in Singapore. The threshold of cost-effectiveness was chosen as 65,000 SGD for this study. RESULTS: For treatment-naive patients, BOC is highly cost-effective compared with SOC (179 SGD/QALY) and cost-saving for patients who have failed prior treatment, due to higher QALYs from better sustained virological response (SVR) and lower costs from avoidance of complications. Sub-group analyses show that BOC is cost-effective for non-cirrhotic treatment-experienced patients and null responders. It out-performs SOC for treatment-naive non-cirrhotic and cirrhotic patients who have failed prior treatment. Even after adjusting for higher prevalence of favourable IL28B genotype in Asians, BOC is cost-effective compared with SOC. Only untreated cirrhotic patients showed inconclusive cost-effectiveness for BOC. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SOC, BOC prevents more HCV liver complications from HCV genotype 1, particularly in patients who have failed previous SOC. Improved SVR and shortened duration of treatment result in BOC being potentially cost-saving or cost-effective in an Asian population.

Cost-effectiveness of boceprevir in patients previously treated for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 infection in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The phase 3 trial, Serine Protease Inhibitor Boceprevir and PegIntron/Rebetol-2 (RESPOND-2), demonstrated that the addition of boceprevir (BOC) to peginterferon-ribavirin (PR) resulted in significantly higher rates of sustained virologic response (SVR) in previously treated patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype-1 infection as compared with PR alone. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatment with BOC in previously treated patients with chronic hepatitis C in the United States using treatment-related data from RESPOND-2 and PROVIDE studies. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model to project the burden of HCV disease, lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life-years associated with PR and two BOC-based therapies-response-guided therapy (BOC/RGT) and fixed-duration therapy for 48 weeks (BOC/PR48). We estimated treatment-related inputs (efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuations) from clinical trials and obtained disease progression rates, costs, and quality-of-life data from published studies. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for BOC-based regimens as studied in RESPOND-2, as well as by patient's prior response to treatment and the IL-28B genotype. RESULTS: BOC-based regimens were projected to reduce the lifetime incidence of liver-related complications by 43% to 53% in comparison with treatment with PR. The ICER of BOC/RGT in comparison with that of PR was $30,200, and the ICER of BOC/PR48 in comparison with that of BOC/RGT was $91,500. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000, the probabilities of BOC/RGT and BOC/PR48 being the preferred option were 0.74 and 0.25, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients previously treated for chronic HCV genotype-1 infection, BOC was projected to increase quality-adjusted life-years and reduce the lifetime incidence of liver complications. In addition, BOC-based therapies were projected to be cost-effective in comparison with PR alone at commonly used willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of boceprevir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection in Portugal.

BACKGROUND: The recent approval of two protease inhibitors, boceprevir and telaprevir, is likely to change the management of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the long-term clinical outcomes and the cost effectiveness of therapeutic strategies using boceprevir with peginterferon plus ribavirin (PR) in comparison with PR alone for treating HCV genotype 1 infection in Portugal. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project the expected lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with PR alone and the treatment strategies outlined by the European Medicines Agency in the boceprevir summary of product characteristics. The boceprevir-based therapeutic strategies differ according to whether or not the patient was previously treated and whether or not the patient had compensated cirrhosis. The model simulated the experience of a series of cohorts of chronically HCV-infected patients (each defined by age, sex, race and fibrosis score). All treatment-related inputs were obtained from boceprevir clinical trials - SPRINT-2, RESPOND-2 and PROVIDE. Estimates of the natural history parameters and health state utilities were based on published studies. Portugal-specific annual direct costs of HCV health states were estimated by convening a panel of experts to derive health state resource use and multiplying the results by national unit costs. The model was developed from a healthcare system perspective with a timeframe corresponding to the remaining duration of the patients' lifetimes. Both future costs and QALYs were discounted at 5 %. To test the robustness of the conclusions, we conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In comparison with the treatment with PR alone, boceprevir-based regimens were projected to reduce the lifetime incidence of advanced liver disease, liver transplantation, and liver-related death by 45-51 % and increase life expectancy by 2.3-4.3 years. Although the addition of BOC increased treatment costs by €13,300-€19,700, the reduction of disease burden resulted in a decrease of €5,400-€9,000 in discounted health state costs and an increase of 0.68-1.23 in discounted QALYs per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the boceprevir-based regimens compared with PR among previously untreated and previously treated patients were €11,600/QALY and €8,700/QALY, respectively. The results were most sensitive to variations in sustained virologic response rates, discount rates and age at treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Adding boceprevir to PR was projected to reduce the number of liver complications and liver-related deaths, and to be cost effective in treating both previously untreated and treated patients.