Take a Bow, Pharma, for the Hepatitis C Drugs.

The direct-acting virals revolutionized the treatment of hepatitis C. They also ushered turbocharged pricing. At least patients-and society-got a major health benefit in return.

Generic ledipasvir-sofosbuvir for patients with chronic hepatitis C: A real-life observational study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Few patients from developing countries can afford brand name direct-acting antiviral agents for treating hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and controversy regarding the bioequivalence of generics exists. This study aimed to observe the safety and efficacy of 8 or 12weeks of generic ledipasvir-sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin for Chinese genotype 1b HCV-infected patients. METHODS: In this open-labelled observational study, 63 cirrhotic (group 1) and 65 non-cirrhotic (group 2) patients were administered generic ledipasvir-sofosbuvir plus 1000-1200mg of ribavirin daily for 12 and 8weeks, respectively; and 64 non-cirrhotic patients (group 3) received ledipasvir-sofosbuvir for 8weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was undetectable HCV RNA at week 12 (SVR12) after cessation of therapy. Safety and pharmacokinetic data were collected. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-seven patients completed treatment, and the latest undetectable HCV RNA was observed in three patients with cirrhosis at week 5 during treatment. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed 96.8% (61/63), 96.9% (63/65), and 96.9% (62/64) of SVR12 rates in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. One patient in group 3 relapsed at post-treatment week 4. The regimens were generally well-tolerated. The most common adverse events were fatigue (17.8%), diarrhea (10.9%), and headache (9.9%). Four patients discontinued therapy due to diarrhea and vomiting. One patient from group 2 discontinued treatment on day 29 because of drug-unaffordability; fortunately, she achieved SVR12. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that 8 or 12weeks of generic ledipasvir-sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin are safe and effective for patients with genotype 1b HCV infection. LAY SUMMARY: The price of Harvoni® has led to restrictions and access limitations in many developing and even developed countries with limited healthcare budgets. Gilead approved generic ledipasvir-sofosbuvir costs far less than Harvoni® and presents a similar cure rate for patients with chronic hepatitis C.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in patients with chronic hepatitis C: Treatment of patients with absence or mild fibrosis compared to patients with advanced fibrosis.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) genotype 1 (GT1) in the absence or mild fibrosis (F0-F1) versus advanced fibrosis (F2-F4), from the perspective of the Spanish Health System. A Markov model was developed to simulate disease progression, estimating costs and outcomes [life years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY)] derived from starting with LDV/SOF in patients with F0-F1 compared with F2-F4. Therapy duration was 8 weeks in noncirrhotic patients with viral load <6 million IU/mL and 12 weeks in the remaining patients. Sustained virologic response rates were obtained from real-world cohort studies. Transition probabilities, utilities and direct costs were obtained from the literature. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed. LDV/SOF in F0-F1 patients was a dominant strategy, being more effective (19.85 LYG and 19.80 QALY) than beginning treatment in F2-F4 patients (18.63 LYG and 16.25 QALY), generating savings of €9228 per patient (€3661 due to disease management and monitoring). In a cohort of 1000 patients, LDV/SOF in F0-F1 patients decreased the number of cases of decompensated cirrhosis (93%), hepatocellular carcinoma (97%) and liver-related deaths (95%) and prevented 6 liver transplants compared to initiating LDV/SOF in F2-F4 patients. In CHC treatment-naïve GT1 patients, starting treatment with LDV/SOF in patients with F0-F1 compared to those with F2-F4 increases effectiveness by 1.22 LYG and 3.55 QALY gained and reduces disease burden and it is associated with cost savings.

Prices, Costs, and Affordability of New Medicines for Hepatitis C in 30 Countries: An Economic Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: New hepatitis C virus (HCV) medicines have markedly improved treatment efficacy and regimen tolerability. However, their high prices have limited access, prompting wide debate about fair and affordable prices. This study systematically compared the price and affordability of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir/sofosbuvir across 30 countries to assess affordability to health systems and patients. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Published 2015 ex-factory prices for a 12-wk course of treatment were provided by the Pharma Price Information (PPI) service of the Austrian public health institute Gesundheit Österreich GmbH or were obtained from national government or drug reimbursement authorities and recent press releases, where necessary. Prices in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries and select low- and middle-income countries were converted to US dollars using period average exchange rates and were adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP). We analysed prices compared to national economic performance and estimated market size and the cost of these drugs in terms of countries' annual total pharmaceutical expenditure (TPE) and in terms of the duration of time an individual would need to work to pay for treatment out of pocket. Patient affordability was calculated using 2014 OECD average annual wages, supplemented with International Labour Organization median wage data where necessary. All data were compiled between 17 July 2015 and 25 January 2016. For the base case analysis, we assumed a 23% rebate/discount on the published price in all countries, except for countries with special pricing arrangements or generic licensing agreements. The median nominal ex-factory price of a 12-wk course of sofosbuvir across 26 OECD countries was US$42,017, ranging from US$37,729 in Japan to US$64,680 in the US. Central and Eastern European countries had higher PPP-adjusted prices than other countries: prices of sofosbuvir in Poland and Turkey (PPP$101,063 and PPP$70,331) and of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in Poland (PPP$118,754) were at least 1.09 and 1.63 times higher, respectively than in the US (PPP$64,680 and PPP$72,765). Based on PPP-adjusted TPE and without the cost of ribavirin and other treatment costs, treating the entire HCV viraemic population with these regimens at the PPP-adjusted prices with a 23% price reduction would amount to at least one-tenth of current TPE across the countries included in this study, ranging from 10.5% of TPE in the Netherlands to 190.5% of TPE in Poland. In 12 countries, the price of a course of sofosbuvir without other costs was equivalent to 1 y or more of the average annual wage of individuals, ranging from 0.21 y in Egypt to 5.28 y in Turkey. This analysis relies on the accuracy of price information and infection prevalence estimates. It does not include the costs of diagnostic testing, supplementary treatments, treatment for patients with reinfection or cirrhosis, or associated health service costs. CONCLUSIONS: Current prices of these medicines are variable and unaffordable globally. These prices threaten the sustainability of health systems in many countries and prevent large-scale provision of treatment. Stakeholders should implement a fairer pricing framework to deliver lower prices that take account of affordability. Without lower prices, countries are unlikely to be able to increase investment to minimise the burden of hepatitis C.

Economic and Public Health Impacts of Policies Restricting Access to Hepatitis C Treatment for Medicaid Patients.

BACKGROUND: Interferon-free hepatitis C treatment regimens are effective but very costly. The cost-effectiveness, budget, and public health impacts of current Medicaid treatment policies restricting treatment to patients with advanced disease remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of current Medicaid policies restricting hepatitis C treatment to patients with advanced disease compared with a strategy providing unrestricted access to hepatitis C treatment, assess the budget and public health impact of each strategy, and estimate the feasibility and long-term effects of increased access to treatment for patients with hepatitis C. METHODS: Using a Markov model, we compared two strategies for 45- to 55-year-old Medicaid beneficiaries: 1) Current Practice-only advanced disease is treated before Medicare eligibility and 2) Full Access-both early-stage and advanced disease are treated before Medicare eligibility. Patients could develop progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma, undergo transplantation, or die each year. Morbidity was reduced after successful treatment. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and compared the costs and public health effects of each strategy from the perspective of Medicare alone as well as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services perspective. We varied model inputs in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Full Access was less costly and more effective than Current Practice for all cohorts and perspectives, with differences in cost ranging from $5,369 to $11,960 and in effectiveness from 0.82 to 3.01 quality-adjusted life-years. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Full Access was cost saving in 93% of model iterations. Compared with Current Practice, Full Access averted 5,994 hepatocellular carcinoma cases and 121 liver transplants per 100,000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Current Medicaid policies restricting hepatitis C treatment to patients with advanced disease are more costly and less effective than unrestricted, full-access strategies. Collaboration between state and federal payers may be needed to realize the full public health impact of recent innovations in hepatitis C treatment.

Restrictions for Medicaid Reimbursement of Sofosbuvir for the Treatment of Hepatitis C Virus Infection in the United States.

The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate state Medicaid policies for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with sofosbuvir in the United States. Medicaid reimbursement criteria for sofosbuvir were evaluated in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The authors searched state Medicaid Web sites between 23 June and 7 December 2014 and extracted data in duplicate. Any differences were resolved by consensus. Data were extracted on whether sofosbuvir was covered and the criteria for coverage based on the following categories: liver disease stage, HIV co-infection, prescriber type, and drug or alcohol use. Of the 42 states with known Medicaid reimbursement criteria for sofosbuvir, 74% limit sofosbuvir access to persons with advanced fibrosis (Meta-Analysis of Histologic Data in Viral Hepatitis [METAVIR] fibrosis stage F3) or cirrhosis (F4). One quarter of states require persons co-infected with HCV and HIV to be receiving antiretroviral therapy or to have suppressed HIV RNA levels. Two thirds of states have restrictions based on prescriber type, and 88% include drug or alcohol use in their sofosbuvir eligibility criteria, with 50% requiring a period of abstinence and 64% requiring urine drug screening. Heterogeneity is present in Medicaid reimbursement criteria for sofosbuvir with respect to liver disease staging, HIV co-infection, prescriber type, and drug or alcohol use across the United States. Restrictions do not seem to conform with recommendations from professional organizations, such as the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Current restrictions seem to violate federal Medicaid law, which requires states to cover drugs consistent with their U.S. Food and Drug Administration labels.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of hepatitis C virus treatment with sofosbuvir and ledipasvir in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Sofosbuvir and ledipasvir, which have recently been approved for treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, are more efficacious and safer than the old standard of care (oSOC) but are substantially more expensive. Whether and in which patients their improved efficacy justifies their increased cost is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir. DESIGN: Microsimulation model of the natural history of HCV infection. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: Treatment-naive and treatment-experienced HCV population defined on the basis of HCV genotype, age, and fibrosis distribution in the United States. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Third-party payer. INTERVENTION: Simulation of sofosbuvir-ledipasvir compared with the oSOC (interferon-based therapies). OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and 5-year spending on antiviral drugs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Sofosbuvir-based therapies added 0.56 QALY relative to the oSOC at an ICER of $55 400 per additional QALY. The ICERs ranged from $9700 to $284 300 per QALY depending on the patient's status with respect to treatment history, HCV genotype, and presence of cirrhosis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, sofosbuvir-based therapies were cost-effective in 83% of treatment-naive and 81% of treatment-experienced patients. Compared with the oSOC, treating eligible HCV-infected persons in the United States with the new drugs would cost an additional $65 billion in the next 5 years, whereas the resulting cost offsets would be $16 billion. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were sensitive to drug price, drug efficacy, and quality of life after successful treatment. LIMITATION: Data on real-world effectiveness of new antivirals are lacking. CONCLUSION: Treatment of HCV is cost-effective in most patients, but additional resources and value-based patient prioritization are needed to manage patients with HCV. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Cost-effectiveness of novel regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus.

BACKGROUND: New regimens for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have shorter treatment durations and increased rates of sustained virologic response compared with existing therapies but are extremely expensive. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these treatments under different assumptions about their price and efficacy. DESIGN: Discrete-event simulation. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: Treatment-naive patients infected with chronic HCV genotype 1, 2, or 3. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Usual care (boceprevir-ribavirin-pegylated interferon [PEG]) was compared with sofosbuvir-ribavirin-PEG and 3 PEG-free regimens: sofosbuvir-simeprevir, sofosbuvir-daclatasvir, and sofosbuvir-ledipasvir. For genotypes 2 and 3, usual care (ribavirin-PEG) was compared with sofosbuvir-ribavirin, sofosbuvir-daclatasvir, and sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin (genotype 3 only). OUTCOME MEASURES: Discounted costs (in 2014 U.S. dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Assuming sofosbuvir, simeprevir, daclatasvir, and ledipasvir cost $7000, $5500, $5500, and $875 per week, respectively, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir was cost-effective for genotype 1 and cost $12 825 more per QALY than usual care. For genotype 2, sofosbuvir-ribavirin and sofosbuvir-daclatasvir cost $110 000 and $691 000 per QALY, respectively. For genotype 3, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin cost $73 000 per QALY, sofosbuvir-ribavirin was more costly and less effective than usual care, and sofosbuvir-daclatasvir cost more than $396 000 per QALY at assumed prices. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Sofosbuvir-ledipasvir was the optimal strategy in most simulations for genotype 1 and would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $5500. For genotype 2, sofosbuvir-ribavirin-PEG would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $2250 per week. For genotype 3, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $1500 per week. LIMITATION: Data are lacking on real-world effectiveness of new treatments and some prices. CONCLUSION: From a societal perspective, novel treatments for HCV are cost-effective compared with usual care for genotype 1 and probably genotype 3 but not for genotype 2. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: CVS Health.

The cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based regimens for treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 2 or 3 infection.

BACKGROUND: Chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 2 or 3 can be treated with sofosbuvir without interferon. Because sofosbuvir is costly, its benefits should be compared with the additional resources used. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based treatments for HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection in the United States. DESIGN: Monte Carlo simulation, including deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. DATA SOURCES: Randomized trials, observational cohorts, and national health care spending surveys. TARGET POPULATION: 8 patient types defined by HCV genotype (2 vs. 3), treatment history (naive vs. experienced), and cirrhosis status (noncirrhotic vs. cirrhotic). TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Payer. INTERVENTION: Sofosbuvir-based therapies, pegylated interferon-ribavirin, and no therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The ICER of sofosbuvir-based treatment was less than $100,000 per QALY in cirrhotic patients (genotype 2 or 3 and treatment-naive or treatment-experienced) and in treatment-experienced noncirrhotic patients but was greater than $200,000 per QALY in treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The ICER of sofosbuvir-based therapy for treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients with genotype 2 or 3 infection was less than $100,000 per QALY when the cost of sofosbuvir was reduced by approximately 40% and 60%, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, cost-effectiveness conclusions were robust to uncertainty in treatment efficacy. LIMITATION: The analysis did not consider possible benefits of preventing HCV transmission. CONCLUSION: Sofosbuvir provides good value for money for treatment-experienced patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection and those with cirrhosis. At their current cost, sofosbuvir-based regimens for treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients exceed willingness-to-pay thresholds commonly cited in the United States. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir-based regimens for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: A new scenario of therapy for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is being established with the approval of sofosbuvir (SOF). OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of SOF-based regimens approved in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) versus the standard of care for different genotypes and patient populations (naive or pretreated). METHODS: A Markov model simulating CHC progression was used to estimate disease treatment costs and effects over patients' lifetimes, from the Spanish National Public Healthcare System perspective. Different therapeutic options were analysed for genotypes 1, 2 and 3 in naive population and for genotype 2 and 3 pretreated patients, according to data obtained from clinical trials. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the uncertainty of certain parameters: treatment starting age, transition probabilities, drug costs and discount rate. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also carried out. RESULTS: For the naive population, the option SOF+pegylated-interferon-α (pIFN)+ribavirin (RBV) for 12 weeks recorded in SmPC for genotype 1 and 3 versus pIFN+RBV for 24 weeks estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the €40,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benchmark. For the pretreated population, SOF triple therapy reached an ICER on the threshold limit for genotype 3. Other options included in SmPC for different genotypes exceeded the accepted efficiency limit in our setting. CONCLUSIONS: The options that included SOF+RBV+pIFN in a 12-week course regimen fell below the efficiency threshold considered in our setting. IFN-free regimens administered for 24 weeks reached figures over the benchmark of €40,000/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based triple therapy for untreated patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C.

UNLABELLED: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir (SOF)-based triple therapy (TT) compared with boceprevir (BOC)- and telaprevir (TVR)-based TT in untreated genotype 1 (G1) chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients discriminated according to IL28B genotype, severity of liver fibrosis, and G1 subtype. The available published literature provided the data source. The target population was made up of untreated Caucasian patients, aged 50 years, with G1CHC and these were evaluated over a lifetime horizon by Markov model. The study was carried out from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. Outcomes included discounted costs (in euros at 2013 value), life-years gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Cost of SOF was assumed to be € 3,500 per week, i.e., the price generating a willingness-to-pay threshold of € 25,000 per LYG compared with TVR in the entire population of untreated G1 patients. The robustness of the results was evaluated by one-way deterministic and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses. SOF was cost-effective compared with BOC in all strategies with the exception of cirrhosis and IL28B CC patients. In comparison with TVR-based strategies, SOF was cost-effective in IL28B CT/TT (ICER per LYG € 22,229) and G1a (€ 19,359) patients, not cost-effective in IL28B CC (€45,330), fibrosis F0-F3 (€ 26,444), and in cirrhosis (€ 34,906) patients, and dominated in G1b patients. The models were sensitive to SOF prices and to likelihood of sustained virological response. CONCLUSION: In untreated G1 CHC patients, SOF-based TT may be a cost-effective alternative to first-generation protease inhibitors depending on pricing. The cost-effectiveness of SOF improved in IL28B CT/TT and G1a patients. SOF was dominated by TVR in G1b patients even if, in clinical practice, this issue could be counterbalanced by the good tolerability profile of SOF and by the shorter treatment duration.

Cost analysis of sofosbuvir/ribavirin versus sofosbuvir/simeprevir for genotype 1 hepatitis C virus in interferon-ineligible/intolerant individuals.

UNLABELLED: Treatment guidance for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) released by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) offers two options for interferon (IFN)-ineligible/intolerant individuals with genotype 1 infection: sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SOF/RBV) for 24 weeks or sofosbuvir/simeprevir (SOF/SMV) for 12 weeks. A 24-week course of SOF/RBV costs approximately US$169,000, with sustained virologic response (SVR) rates ranging from 52% to 84%; 12 weeks of SOF/SMV costs approximately $150,000, with SVR between 89% and 100%. Because SOF/SMV is currently used off-label, debate exists among physicians and payers about whether it should be prescribed and covered. This article presents a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two treatment regimens accounting for costs of drugs, treatment-related medical care, retreatment for individuals who do not achieve SVR, and natural history of continued HCV infection after failed retreatment. Analysis uses a Markov model with a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective. In the base-case scenario, SOF/SMV dominated SOF/RBV in a modeled 50-year-old cohort of treatment-naïve and -experienced subjects, excluding those who failed earlier therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir. SOF/SMV yielded lower costs and more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the average subject, compared to SOF/RBV ($165,336 and 14.69 QALYs vs. $243,586 and 14.45 QALYs, respectively). In base-case cost analysis, the SOF/SMV treatment strategy saved $91,590 per SVR, compared to SOF/RBV. Under all one-way sensitivity scenarios, SOF/SMV remained dominant and resulted in cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a 12-week course of SOF/SMV is a more cost-effective treatment for genotype 1 CHC than 24 weeks of SOF/RBV among IFN-ineligible/intolerant individuals, supporting the AASLD/IDSA guidance and offering implications for both clinical and regulatory decision making as well as pharmaceutical pricing.

A window of opportunity: maximizing the effectiveness of new HCV regimens in the United States with the expansion of the Affordable Care Act.

Patients with chronic HCV have predictable overlapping comorbidities that reduce access to care. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) presents an opportunity to focus on the benefits of the medical home model for integrated chronic disease management. New, highly effective HCV treatment regimens in combination with the medical home model could reduce disease prevalence. We sought to address challenges posed by comorbidities in patients with chronic HCV infection and limitations within our health care system, and recommend solutions to maximize the public benefit from ACA and the new drug regimen.

Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based treatments for chronic hepatitis C in the US.

BACKGROUND: The standard care of treatment of interferon plus ribavirin (plus protease inhibitor for genotype 1) are effective in 50 % to 70 % of patients with CHC. Several new treatments including Harvoni, Olysio + Sovaldi, Viekira Pak, Sofosbuvir-based regimens characterized with potent inhibitors have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) providing more options for CHC patients. Trials have shown that the new treatments increased the rate to 80% to 95%, though with a substantial increase in cost. In particular, current market pricing of a 12-week course of sofosbuvir is approximately US$84,000. We determine the cost-effectiveness of new treatments in comparison with the standard care of treatments. METHODS: A Markov simulation model of CHC disease progression is used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies based on genotype. The model calculates the expected lifetime medical costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of hypothetical cohorts of identical patients receiving certain treatments. For genotype 1, we compare: (1) peginterferon + ribavirin + telaprevir for 12 weeks, followed by 12 or 24 weeks treatment of peginterferon + ribavirin dependent on HCV RNA level at week 12; (2) Harvoni treatment, 12 weeks; (3) Olysio + Sovaldi, 12 weeks for patients without cirrhosis, 24 weeks for patients with cirrhosis; (4) Viekira Pak + ribavirin, 12 weeks for patients without cirrhosis, 24 weeks for patients with cirrhosis; (5) sofosbuvir + peginterferon + ribavirin, 12 weeks for patients with or without cirrhosis. For genotypes 2 and 3, treatment strategies include: (1) peginterferon + ribavirin, 24 weeks for treatment-naïve patients; (2) sofosbuvir + ribavirin, 12 weeks for patients with genotype 2, 24 weeks for genotype 3; (3) peginterferon + ribavirin as initial treatment, 24 weeks for patients with genotype 2/3, follow-up treatment with sofosbuvir + ribavirin for 12/16 weeks are performed on non-responders and relapsers. RESULTS: Viekira Pak is cost-effective for genotype 1 patients without cirrhosis, whereas Harvoni is cost-effective for genotype 1 patients with cirrhosis. Sofosbuvir-based treatments for genotype 1 in general are not cost-effective due to its substantial high costs. Two-phase treatments with 12-week and 16-week follow-ups are cost-effective for genotype 3 patients and for genotype 2 patients with cirrhosis. The results were shown to be robust over a broad range of parameter values through sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For genotype 1, sofosbuvir-based treatments are not cost-effective compared to Viekira Pak and Harvoni, although a 30% reduction in sofosbuvir price would change this result. Sofosbuvir + ribavirin are cost-effective as second-phase treatments following peginterferon + ribavirin initial treatment for genotypes 2 and 3. However, there is limited data on sofosbuvir-involved treatment, and the results obtained in this study must be interpreted within the model assumptions.

Sofosbuvir-based treatment regimens for chronic, genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection in U.S. incarcerated populations: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is high among incarcerated persons in the United States. New, short-duration, high-efficacy therapies may expand treatment eligibility in this population. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir for HCV treatment in incarcerated populations. DESIGN: Markov model. DATA SOURCES: Published literature and expert opinion. TARGET POPULATION: Treatment-naive men with chronic, genotype 1 HCV monoinfection. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: No treatment, 2-drug therapy (pegylated interferon and ribavirin), or 3-drug therapy with either boceprevir or sofosbuvir. For inmates with short remaining sentences (<1.5 years), only no treatment or sofosbuvir 3-drug therapy was feasible; for those with long sentences (≥1.5 years; mean, 10 years), all strategies were considered. After release, eligible persons could receive sofosbuvir 3-drug therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Discounted costs (in 2013 U.S. dollars), discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The strategies yielded 13.12, 13.57, 14.43, and 15.18 QALYs, respectively, for persons with long sentences. Sofosbuvir produced the largest absolute reductions in decompensated cirrhosis (16%) and hepatocellular carcinoma (9%), resulting in 2.1 additional QALYs at an added cost exceeding $54,000 compared with no treatment. For persons with short sentences, sofosbuvir cost $25,700 per QALY gained compared with no treatment; for those with long sentences, it dominated other treatments, costing $28,800 per QALY gained compared with no treatment. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: High reinfection rates in prison attenuated cost-effectiveness for persons with long sentences. LIMITATIONS: Data on sofosbuvir's long-term effectiveness and price are limited. The analysis did not consider women, Hispanic persons, or patients co-infected with HIV or hepatitis B virus. CONCLUSION: Sofosbuvir-based treatment is cost-effective for incarcerated persons, but affordability is an important consideration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Hepatitis C in Arkansas: updates on epidemiology, testing and treatment.

Hepatitis C infection is the most common blood-borne infection in the United States with an estimated 2.7 million individuals suffering from chronic infection. Of those who are infected with Hepatitis C virus, 75-85% develop chronic infection. Without treatment for chronic infection, individuals can develop liver diseases, such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, during many years of asymptomatic infection. To examine the burden of Hepatitis C virus infection in the state, the Arkansas Department of Health created an epidemiologic profile based on data collected in 2013 from several data sources, including the department's Hepatitis C surveillance program. In order to make more Arkansans aware of their infection, the local health units in all 75 counties of the state recently began screening individuals at risk for the disease, including persons born during the years 1945-1965. Despite recent advances in treatment efficacy, identifying infected individuals and connecting patients to affordable HCV treatment and care remain priorities.

Minimum costs for producing hepatitis C direct-acting antivirals for use in large-scale treatment access programs in developing countries.

BACKGROUND: Several combinations of 2 or 3 direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) can cure hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the majority of treatment-naive patients. DAAs for HCV infection have similar mechanisms of action and chemical structures to antiretrovirals for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Generic antiretrovirals are currently manufactured at very low prices, to treat 10 million people with HIV/AIDS in developing countries. METHODS: Four HCV DAAs, currently either in phase 3 development or recent approval (daclatasvir, sofosbuvir, simeprevir, faldaprevir), and ribavirin were classified by chemical structure, molecular weight, total daily dose, and complexity of synthesis. The likely range of manufacturing costs per gram of DAA were then projected as formulated product cost, based upon treating a minimum of 1 million patients annually (to arrive at volume demand) combined with an analysis of the complexity of synthesis and a 40% margin for formulation. Projections were then compared with actual costs of antiretrovirals with similar structures. RESULTS: Minimum manufacturing costs of antiretrovirals were US$0.2-$2.1 per gram. The complexity of chemical synthesis for HCV DAAs was ranked from lowest to highest: ribavirin, daclatasvir, sofosbuvir, faldaprevir, and simeprevir. Predicted manufacturing costs (US dollars) for 12-week courses of HCV DAAs were $21-$63 for ribavirin, $10-$30 for daclatasvir, $68-$136 for sofosbuvir, $100-$210 for faldaprevir, and $130-$270 for simeprevir. CONCLUSIONS: Within the next 15 years, large-scale manufacture of 2 or 3 drug combinations of HCV DAAs is feasible, with minimum target prices of $100-$250 per 12-week treatment course. These low prices could make widespread access to HCV treatment in low- and middle-income countries a realistic goal.