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.

Effectiveness and cost of quick diagnostic tests to determine tetanus immunity in patients with a wound in French emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Tétanos Quick Stick® (TQS) is a test for tetanus immunity screening for wounded patients in emergency departments (EDs), but represents additional costs compared with a medical interview on vaccination history. The study objective was to assess the effectiveness and cost of the TQS in French EDs. METHODS: We performed a model-based analysis that simulates screening of tetanus immunity and risk of tetanus based on prophylaxis administration. Strategies compared were: i) diagnosis of tetanus immunity by "TQS"; ii) "Medical Interview" (current practice). The study population was 1,658,000 French adults seeking ED care for a wound in 2012. Model parameters were estimated based on French national surveillance data, and published literature. Outcome measures were number of tetanus cases, life years gained and costs (2012 €) from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Use of TQS had negligible impact on health outcomes (0.02 tetanus cases/year in France vs. 0.41 for "Medical Interview"), but resulted in a decrease in annual costs of €2,203,000 (-42%). Base case and sub-group analysis showed that with the same effectiveness, the average cost per patient was: €13 with "Medical Interview" vs. €11.7 with TQS for the overall cohort; €28.9 with "Medical Interview" vs. €21 with "TQS" for tetanus-prone wounds; €15 with "Medical Interview" vs. €14.1 with "TQS" for patients aged ≥65 years; and €6.2 with "Medical Interview" vs. €7.8 with "TQS" for non-tetanus-prone wounds. CONCLUSIONS: Use of TQS is as effective and less costly than "Medical Interview" when applied in ED to wounded patients with tetanus-prone wounds or aged ≥65 years. However, it is more expensive in patients with non-tetanus-prone wounds.

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.