Non-pharmacologic direct cost of a simplified strategy with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for 8 weeks in naïve non-cirrhotic patients with hepatitis C implemented in clinical practice. The Just SIMPLE Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The emergence of highly tolerable, effective, and shorter duration direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) regimens offers the opportunity to simplify hepatitis C virus management but medical costs are unknown. Thus, we aimed to determine the direct medical costs associated with a combo-simplified strategy (one-step diagnosis and low monitoring) to manage HCV infection within an 8-week glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) regimen in clinical practice in Spain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Healthcare resources and clinical data were collected retrospectively from medical charts of 101 eligible patients at 11 hospitals. Participants were adult, treatment naïve subjects with HCV infection without cirrhosis in whom a combo-simplified strategy with GLE/PIB for 8 weeks were programmed between Apr-2018 and Nov-2018. RESULTS: The GLE/PIB effectiveness was 100% (CI95%: 96.2-100%) in the mITT population and 94.1% (CI95%: 87.5-97.8%) in the ITT population. Three subjects discontinued the combo-simplified strategy prematurely, none of them due to safety reasons. Five subjects reported 8 adverse events, all of mild-moderate intensity. Combo-simplified strategy mean direct costs were 754.35±103.60€ compared to 1689.42€ and 2007.89€ of a theoretical 12-week treatment with 4 or 5 monitoring visits, respectively; and 1370.95€ and 1689.42€ of a theoretical 8-week with 3 or 4 monitoring visits, respectively. Only 4.9% of the subjects used unexpected health care resources. CONCLUSIONS: 8-week treatment with GLE/PIB combined with a combo simplified strategy in real-life offers substantial cost savings without affecting the effectiveness and safety compared to traditional approaches.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir With or Without Ribavirin Regimen for Patients Infected With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 in Malaysia.

OBJECTIVES: The combination of pegylated-interferon and ribavirin (PegIFN+RBV) is currently the gold standard in treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients in Malaysia and is reimbursed by the Malaysian authorities. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV) regimen as compared with the PegIFN+RBV or no treatment in chronic HCV Genotype 1 (GT1) treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients in Malaysia. METHODS: A Markov model based on previously published CE models of HCV was adapted for the Malaysian public healthcare payer perspective, based on good modeling practices. Treatment attributes included efficacy, regimen duration, and EQ-5D treatment-related health utility. Transitional probabilities and health state health utilities were derived from previous studies. Costs were derived from Malaysian data sources. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.0% per year. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainties around key variables. RESULTS: Based on the analysis, patients treated with the OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV showed less frequent progression to compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related deaths when compared with standard care (ie, PegIFN+RBV or no treatment). At a price of MYR 1846/day, the OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV regimen is cost-effective over PegIFN+RBV and yields better outcomes in terms of life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a higher cost, which is still well below the implied willingness to pay threshold of MYR 384 503/QALY. CONCLUSION: The OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV regimen is cost-effective for treatment naïve, treatment experienced, cirrhotic, and noncirrhotic GT1 chronic HCV patients in Malaysia.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Triple Therapy With Telaprevir and Boceprevir for Chronic Hepatitis C: A Decision Analysis From the Brazilian Public Health System Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Because of the lack of evidence regarding long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-generation direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treatment in Brazil, we performed a cost-utility analysis comparing standard dual therapy (peginterferon plus ribavirin [pegIFN/RBV]), boceprevir, and telaprevir for CHC patients. METHODS: We developed a state-transition Markov model simulating the progression of CHC. Long-term outcomes included remaining life expectancy in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Short-term outcomes included sustained virological response rates (SVR). Direct medical costs were obtained from Brazilian databases. A lifelong time horizon was considered and a 5% annual discount rate was applied for costs and clinical outcomes. A willingness-to-pay threshold of approximately $20 000 per QALY was used. We performed multiple sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: For short- and long-term scenarios, therapy with boceprevir was dominated by telaprevir, which was more effective than standard dual therapy (75.0% vs 40.4% SVR rate, 13.47 vs 12.59 LYs, and 9.74 vs 8.49 QALYs, respectively) and was also more expensive ($15 742 vs $5413). The corresponding ICERs were $29 854/SVR, $11 803/LY, and $8277/QALY. Based on our model, triple therapy with telaprevir was the most cost-effective treatment for the Brazilian health system. Despite a lack of data regarding the Brazilian population, we incorporated as many applicable parameters as possible. CONCLUSIONS: Telaprevir is more effective and cost-effective than boceprevir. Our model may be applied for other settings with a few adjustments in the input parameters.

Micro-costing analysis of guideline-based treatment by direct-acting agents: the real-life case of hepatitis C management in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Eradication of hepatitis C virus (HCV) using direct-acting agents (DAA) has been associated with a financial burden to health authorities worldwide. We aimed to evaluate the guideline-based treatment costs by DAAs from the perspective of the Brazilian Ministry of Health (BMoH). METHODS: The activity based costing method was used to estimate the cost for monitoring/treatment of genotype-1 (GT1) HCV patients by the following strategies: peg-interferon (PEG-IFN)/ribavirin (RBV) for 48 weeks, PEG-IFN/RBV plus boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TEL) for 48 weeks, and sofosbuvir (SOF) plus daclastavir (DCV) or simeprevir (SIM) for 12 weeks. Costs were reported in United States Dollars without (US$) and with adjustment for purchasing power parity (PPP$). Drug costs were collected at the National Database of Health Prices and an overview of the literature was performed to assess effectiveness of SOF/DCV and SOF/SIM regimens in real-world cohorts. RESULTS: Treatment costs of GT1-HCV patients were PPP$ 43,176.28 (US$ 24,020.16) for PEG-IFN/RBV, PPP$ 71,196.03 (US$ 39,578.23) for PEG-IFN/RBV/BOC and PPP$ 86,250.33 (US$ 47,946.92) for PEG-IFN/RBV/TEL. Treatment by all-oral interferon-free regimens were the less expensive approach: PPP$ 19,761.72 (US$ 10,985.90) for SOF/DCV and PPP$ 21,590.91 (US$ 12,002.75) for SOF/SIM. The overview reported HCV eradication in up to 98% for SOF/DCV and 96% for SOF/SIM. CONCLUSION: Strategies with all oral interferon-free might lead to lower costs for management of GT1-HCV patients compared to IFN-based regimens in Brazil. This occurred mainly because of high discounts over international DAA prices due to negotiation between BMoH and pharmaceutical industries.

The number of patients with chronic hepatitis C in times of new therapy options: a retrospective observational study on German health insurance funds data.

AIM/OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) virus infection is a leading cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality. In Germany, as in many other countries, there is a lack of comprehensive epidemiological data. Routine data from sickness funds can support the estimation of the true prevalence and incidence of CHC. METHODS: In this article, the results of annual and quarterly analyses of prevalence and incidence for the years 2007-2013 are presented using data of several German sickness funds. RESULTS: Overall, the prevalence rate remained relatively stable at 0.2%, which is lower than the general assumption for Germany of 0.3%. CONCLUSION: We found that despite the introduction of the breakthrough designated triple therapies with telaprevir or boceprevir in 2011, there was no increase of prevalence or incidence between 2010 and 2011.

Treatment Selection Choices Should Not Be Based on Benefits or Costs Alone: A Head-to-Head Randomized Controlled Trial of Antiviral Drugs for Hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians often face dilemmas with decisions related to formulary choices when two similar drugs are simultaneously available in the market. We studied the comparative safety, effectiveness, and treatment costs of the two first generation direct-acting antiviral agents (DAA), boceprevir and telaprevir as uncertainty existed regarding the drug of choice between these two seemingly equally Hepatitis-C treatment options. METHODS: We randomly assigned 50 patients in an open-label, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) at a VA Medical Center to either boceprevir or telaprevir in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin, stratified by the presence of cirrhosis and prior treatment experience. Tolerability was assessed at each visit and reasons for discontinuation of treatment and severity of adverse events due to PI treatment were adjudicated using a blinded adjudication committee. The primary outcome was difference in tolerability between boceprevir vs. telaprevir. Secondary outcomes included viral response rates and cost-per cure achieved. RESULTS: Higher rates of treatment discontinuations and/or severe DAA associated adverse events were seen in 10/25 (40%) patients randomized to telaprevir compared to 2/25 (8%) patients randomized to boceprevir (RR: 5; 95% CI: 1.2, 20; p<0.01). Cure rates did not appear to be significantly different between groups (telaprevir vs. boceprevir: RR 1.23; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.99; p = 0.39). On an intention-to-treat basis, total cost per cure was $44,329 for boceprevir vs. $57,115 for telaprevir. The significant side effect profile of telaprevir combined with the availability of highly efficacious second generation DAAs led to the early discontinuation of the trial. CONCLUSION: Telaprevir is associated with a significantly higher rate of severe adverse events leading to treatment discontinuations, hospitalizations or severe anemia and a substantially higher cost per SVR when compared to boceprevir. Real-time, point of care, pragmatic randomized controlled trials are necessary for guidance beyond just acquisition costs and to make evidence-based formulary selections when multiple effective treatments are available. (Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT02113631).

[Cost-effectiveness and safety of telaprevir and boceprevir for chronic hepatitis C in real-world clinical practice]. / Coste-efectividad y seguridad de telaprevir y boceprevir para el tratamiento de la hepatitis C crónica en la práctica clínica.

INTRODUCTION: Triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir has proven to be effective in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C with response rates of up to 88%. However, the treatment may be associated with important adverse effects and a high economic impact. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and safety of triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. METHODS: Retrospective observational study. We included all patients who had started treatment with protease inhibitors before July 31(st), 2013. We evaluated sustained virological response, the cost per patient achieving sustained virological response, and the cost of the supportive treatment for adverse events associated with triple therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were included; 35 had been treated with telaprevir (59.3%) and 24 with boceprevir (40.7%). Sustained virological response was achieved by 38 (64.4%) patients: 24 (68.6%) patients in the telaprevir treatment arm and 14 (58.3%) patients in the boceprevir treatment arm. The cost per patient with sustained virological response was 43,555 € (95% CI 35,389-51,722 €). There were no statistically significant differences between the overall costs of therapy with telaprevir, 43,494 € (95% CI 34,795 €-55,092 €) versus boceprevir, 42,005 € (95% CI 32,122-64,243€). The mean cost of supportive care per patient was 1,500 €, while the maximum cost was 11,374 €. Due to adverse events, 8 (13.6%) patients required hospital admission, 22 (37.3%) patients attended the accident and emergency department, and 26 (44.1%) patients needed additional medical consultations. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir resulted in high cost per patient with sustained virological response. Due to adverse events, a high number of patients required supportive care, whose costs should be added to those of triple therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of Interferon-free therapy for Hepatitis C in Germany--an application of the efficiency frontier approach.

BACKGROUND: The approval of direct-acting antivirals for Interferon-free treatment revolutionized the therapy of chronic Hepatitis C infection. As of August 2014, two treatment regimens for genotype 1 infection received conditional approval in the European Union: Sofosbuvir and Ribavirin for 24 weeks and Sofosbuvir and Simeprevir with or without Ribavirin for 12 weeks. We aim to analyze the cost-effectiveness of both regimens in Germany. METHODS: We set up a Markov model with a lifetime horizon to simulate immediate treatment success and long-term disease progression for treatment-naive patients. The model analyzes both short-term and long-term costs and benefits from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance. We apply the efficiency frontier method, which was suggested by German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care for cost-effectiveness analysis in Germany. RESULTS: The efficiency frontier is defined by dual therapy and first generation direct-acting antiviral Boceprevir, yielding a maximum of € 1,447.69 per additional percentage point of sustained virologic response gained. Even without rebates, Sofosbuvir/Simeprevir is very close with € 1,560.13 per additional percentage point. It is both more effective and less expensive than Sofosbuvir/Ribavirin. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to higher sustained virologic response rates, new direct-acting antivirals save long-term costs by preventing complications such as liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and ultimately liver transplants, thereby offsetting part of higher drug costs. Our findings are in line with the guidance published by German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases, which recommends Sofosbuvir/Simeprevir for Interferon ineligible or intolerant patients.

Boceprevir for Chronic Genotype 1 Hepatitis C Virus in the Current Health Care Setting in Greece: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: Boceprevir, as an add-on to the standard of care (SOC) for chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (G1 HCV), pegylated interferon + ribavirin for 48 weeks (PEG + RBV), has been reported to have a clinical profile superior to that of SOC alone. The objective of the present study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy with PEG + RBV + boceprevir to that of SOC in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients with G1 HCV in Greece. METHODS: A Markov model that simulated the quality-adjusted life expectancy and corresponding costs of treating G1 HCV infection provided the basis of the analysis. Treatment strategies under consideration were those in the Phase III boceprevir trials: (1) boceprevir response-guided therapy (shortened treatment duration for early responders); (2) fixed-duration (4-week) SOC plus 44 weeks of triple therapy; and (3) 48-week SOC. Efficacy data and the baseline characteristics of the study population were based on data from the SPRINT-2 (Serine Protease Inhibitor Therapy 2) and RESPOND-2 (Retreatment with HCV Serine Protease Inhibitor Boceprevir and PegIntron/Rebetol 2) clinical trials. Health care resource utilization and costs reflect the local clinical setting, with a 3% discount per annum, and were assessed from a third-party payer perspective. FINDINGS: Triple therapy was projected to reduce liver complications (eg, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, need for liver transplantation, and liver-related death) by 44% to 45% and 49% to 53% in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, respectively, over a lifetime horizon, leading to corresponding gains of 0.87 and 1.25 quality-adjusted life-years gained per patient. Taking into account the costs of medications, treatment, and outcomes management, the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of triple therapy versus SOC were €10,003 and €10,852 per quality-adjusted life-years gained in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients. Extensive sensitivity analyses suggested that the findings were robust over a wide range of inputs. IMPLICATIONS: Based on the findings from the present analysis, the addition of boceprevir to PEG + RBV for the treatment of patients with G1 HCV may be a cost-effective alternative in the health care setting in Greece.

Costs and Resource Utilization Associated With Anemia and Rash in Chronic Hepatitis C Patients Treated With Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents in the United States.

PURPOSE: The addition of 2 direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents, telaprevir and boceprevir, to peginterferon and ribavirin therapy significantly improves sustained virologic response rates in patients treated for chronic hepatitis C virus (CHC) but is associated with a higher risk of adverse events (AEs), including anemia and rash. Using a large administrative claims database, this study compared the health care resource utilization and costs among CHC patients who developed anemia and/or rash while receiving DAA-based therapies (telaprevir and boceprevir) versus those who did not develop anemia or rash. Adjusted costs were compared by using regression analysis. METHODS: Adult patients with ≥1 CHC diagnosis and a prescription for boceprevir or telaprevir were selected from a US-based claims database. The date of the first DAA fill after May 13, 2011, was defined as the index date. Patients were required to have continuous eligibility and no claims for hepatitis B treatment during the 6 months before (baseline) and 12 months after (study period) the index date. Patients were categorized into 4 cohorts based on the development of anemia only, rash only, both anemia and rash (anemia/rash), or neither anemia nor rash (NAR) while receiving DAA-based therapies. Baseline characteristics and study period health care utilization and costs were compared by using univariate statistics between cohorts that developed anemia only, rash only, or anemia/rash and the cohort that did not develop anemia or rash. Adjusted costs were compared by using multivariable regressions. FINDINGS: A total of 2862 patients were identified and categorized into 4 cohorts: 1204 anemia only, 131 rash only, 188 anemia/rash, and 1339 NAR patients. During the study period, patients developing anemia and/or rash incurred significantly more outpatient, dermatologist, and total medical visits compared with the NAR cohort. The anemia-only and anemia/rash cohorts also had significantly more inpatient, emergency department, and hematologist visits, as well as significantly higher adjusted total medical costs ($18,285 and $21,435 vs $11,253), total drug costs ($76,723 and $79,689 vs $63,001), and non-CHC drug costs ($10,391 and $10,475 vs $2437). The rash-only cohort had comparable adjusted total medical and drug costs. IMPLICATIONS: CHC patients who developed anemia while receiving DAA-based therapies incurred significantly higher resource utilization and costs compared with those who did not. The study highlights the need for new CHC treatment regimens that are associated with fewer and less severe AEs, particularly anemia.

Direct costs of first-generation protease inhibitors for the treatment of genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C viral infection.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Hepatitis C therapy, robust real-world data are needed to understand the costs and benefits of treatment alternatives. The objective of this study was to evaluate the true direct cost of treatment in an unselected sequential population of patients treated at a tertiary care centre for hepatitis C virus genotype 1. A total of 200 consecutive patients were treated with interferon, ribavirin and a first-generation direct-acting antiviral agent (DAA) between 2011 and 2013. A total of 41% had cirrhosis, 31% were prior relapsers, and 41% were prior partial or null responders. Costs used were wholesale acquisition cost prices for medications, average hospital costs per day for each diagnosis code based on US inpatient hospital charges. All costs were adjusted to 2013 dollars. Sustained virologic response (SVR) was achieved in 97 patients (48.5%). A total of 14% experienced relapse, 19% breakthrough or nonresponse, and 18.5% discontinued secondary to side effects. Twenty per cent of patients had at least one hospitalization attributable to a complication of therapy. Thirty-seven per cent of patients required erythropoietin-stimulating agents, 16% received filgastrim, and 15% needed a red blood cell transfusion. The mean overall cost of treatment was $83,851 per patient. The cost per SVR was $172,889; $266,670 for patients with cirrhosis. The costs per SVR after treatment with first-generation DAAs are dependent on the stage of disease and therapy side effects. These real-world costs significantly exceed those described in prior cost-effectiveness assessments and should be used instead for future studies.

Treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and costs in U.S. patients diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C infection who received telaprevir or boceprevir.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, with the future burden of disease predicted to significantly increase. The recent addition of 2 direct-acting antiviral (DAA) protease inhibitors, telaprevir and boceprevir, to peginterferon alfa (PEG) and ribavirin (RBV) therapy has been shown to significantly improve sustained virologic response rates and thus has become standard of care. While the efficacy and safety of DAAs has been assessed in the clinical trial setting, less is known about real-world use of these new therapies. OBJECTIVES: To (a) evaluate the treatment patterns, health care utilization, and costs of CHC patients receiving DAA-based therapies in the United States using a retrospective analysis of a large administrative claims database and (b) evaluate factors associated with therapy noncompletion using multivariable analyses. METHODS: Adult patients with ≥ 1 claim for CHC and a prescription filled for boceprevir or telaprevir were selected from a de-identified U.S.-based claims database. The date of the first fill for a DAA after May 13, 2011 (date of first DAA availability) was defined as the index date, and patients were categorized into either the telaprevir or boceprevir cohort. Patients were required to have continuous eligibility and no claims for hepatitis B during the 6 months before (baseline) and 12 months following (study period) the index date. Baseline characteristics and study period treatment patterns, health care utilization, and costs were described. Factors associated with therapy noncompletion were examined using multivariable logistic regression, and adjusted health care costs were compared between the DAA cohorts using multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 871 telaprevir and 284 boceprevir patients were identified. DAA patients were aged 54 years on average and more often were male (60%, n = 688). Approximately 25% (n = 216) of telaprevir and 18% (n = 52) of boceprevir patients had cirrhosis, and 9% (n = 82) of telaprevir and 7% (n = 20) of boceprevir patients had decompensated cirrhosis at baseline. Less than 1% (n = 9) of patients were HIV co-infected. Approximately 54% (n = 470) of telaprevir and 74% (n = 210) of boceprevir patients did not complete the minimum duration of therapy as per the prescribing information (telaprevir: 12 weeks of triple + 12 weeks of dual; boceprevir: 3 weeks of lead-in + 24 weeks of triple). In multivariable analyses, females (vs. males) and patients taking boceprevir (vs. telaprevir) were more likely to not complete therapy (P = 0.011). CHC patients experienced high medical and drug-related resource utilization. Telaprevir patients had numerically higher study period unadjusted medical (boceprevir: $16,927; telaprevir: $19,519) and drug costs (boceprevir: $59,953; telaprevir: $76,497) than boceprevir patients; however, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, only drug costs remained significantly different (P less than 0.001).  CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that a large proportion of CHC patients receiving telaprevir or boceprevir did not complete minimum duration of therapy as per the prescribing information. CHC patients on a DAA regimen also experienced high resource utilization and high medical and drug costs.

Early virological assessment during telaprevir- or boceprevir-based triple therapy in hepatitis C cirrhotic patients who failed a previous interferon based regimen - The ANRS CO20-CUPIC study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To assess within the ANRS CO20-CUPIC cohort whether the viral load (VL) at week 2/week 6 for telaprevir/boceprevir-based triple therapy, respectively, was predictive of sustained virological response (SVR) in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and to study the relevance of this measurement to early diagnose drug resistance. METHODS: Observational study of HCV genotype 1 patients with compensated cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A), non-responders to a prior course of interferon (IFN)-based therapy and who started triple therapy. Patients received either 12 weeks of telaprevir in combination with PEG-IFN/ribavirin (RBV), then 36 weeks of PEG-IFN/RBV, or 4 weeks of PEG-IFN/RBV, then 44 weeks of PEG-IFN/RBV and boceprevir. RESULTS: A total of 262 patients were analyzed. For telaprevir-treated patients, 28% had undetectable VL at W2 of whom 81% achieved SVR12 whereas 67% had undetectable VL at W4 of whom 67% achieved SVR12. For boceprevir-treated patients 20% had undetectable VL at W6 and 86% of them achieved SVR12 whereas 36% had undetectable VL at W8 among whom 73% achieved SVR12. Five telaprevir-treated patients had a VL increase between W2 and W4 after a decrease between D0 and W2. Four of them did not achieve SVR12. Similarly, six boceprevir-treated patients had a VL increase between W6 and W8 after a decrease between D0 and W6. Five did not reach SVR12. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of HCV RNA level after two weeks of triple therapy in cirrhotic non-responder patients is a good predictor of SVR. This assessment was useful to do an early diagnosis of viral breakthrough.

Management of treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options.

New and more promising therapies for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) genotype 1 (G1) naive patients have recently been approved in the United States and Europe, and several more regimens are expected to become available within the next several years. While this scenario unfolds, it is necessary to develop a rational method to allocate current treatment in CHC G1 patients. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of boceprevir (BOC)- and telaprevir (TVR)-based triple therapy according to different patients' selection strategies. A semi-Markov model of CHC natural history and progression towards end-stage liver disease was built. We considered 3 selection strategies based on METAVIR fibrosis stage: (i) treat all patients with F1-F4 fibrosis, (ii) only F2-F4 and (iii) only F3-F4. For each strategy, TVR interleukin-28B-guided (IL28B-guided) and BOC rapid virologic response-guided (RVR-guided) therapies were applied. The model assessed the costs and outcomes, using a lifetime and 5-year time horizon, and adopting the Italian National Health System perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for F1-F4 strategy relative to F3-F4 was €5132 per quality-adjusted life years gained, across TVR IL-28B-guided therapy, and €7042 in the BOC RVR-guided therapy. Conversely, in the 5-year scenario, the ICER for F1-F4 strategy relative to F3-F4 was €1 818 679 (TVR IL28B-guided) and €1 866 437 (BOC RVR-guided) per end-stage liver disease or death (ESLD-D) avoided. In view of anticipated improvement in the efficacy of future regimens, selective treatment of only patients with advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis with TVR or BOC could represent the most cost-effective strategy to optimize resource utilization.

Generation of a chimeric hepatitis C replicon encoding a genotype-6a NS3 protease and assessment of boceprevir (SCH503034) sensitivity and drug-associated mutations.

BACKGROUND: Genotype (gt)6 HCV is common amongst HCV-positive populations of the Asia-Pacific region but cell culture models for this gt have only recently been developed. Boceprevir (SCH503034) is a clinically available inhibitor of the HCV NS3 protein. We investigated the efficacy of boceprevir for inhibiting replication of a chimeric gt1b replicon encoding a gt6a NS3 protease and defined the development of mutations in the protease when boceprevir treatment was applied. METHODS: We constructed a chimeric gt1b subgenomic replicon encoding a gt6 NS3 protease (NS3p) sequence (gt6NS3p_gt1b). The boceprevir EC50 value against replication of this replicon was determined using quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR. Next-generation sequencing was used to identify nucleotide changes associated with boceprevir resistance. The replication capacities of chimeric replicons containing mutations associated with boceprevir resistance were determined by colony formation efficiency assays. RESULTS: The boceprevir EC50 value for the gt6NS3p_gt1b replicon was 535 ±79 nM. Boceprevir-resistant gt6NS3p_gt1b replicon cell lines could be selected and they demonstrated drug-associated amino acid changes that have previously been reported in other HCV gts. Interestingly, no mutations were observed at A156, a position defined for boceprevir resistance in gt1 NS3p, while mutation at N122, which is rarely reported in boceprevir-resistant gt1 proteases, was frequently observed. Re-introduction of these mutations into the chimeric replicon altered their replication capacity, ranging from complete abolishment of replication (A156T) to increasing replication capacity (V36A, N122S). This report provides the first characterization of gt6 HCV resistance to boceprevir. CONCLUSIONS: A chimeric HCV replicon encoding gt6 NS3 protease is sensitive to boceprevir and develops drug-resistant mutations at amino acid sites previously reported for other gts. Mutation at N122 also appears to be associated with boceprevir resistance in the gt6 NS3 protease.

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.