A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Shortened Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment in Genotype 1 Noncirrhotic Treatment-Naive Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antivirals are successful in curing hepatitis C virus infection in more than 95% of patients treated for 12 weeks, but they are expensive. Shortened treatment durations, which may have lower cure rates, have been proposed to reduce costs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of different shortened treatment durations for genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients. METHODS: Assuming a UK National Health Service perspective, we used a probabilistic decision tree and Markov model to compare 3 unstratified shortened treatment durations (8, 6, and 4 weeks) against a standard 12-week treatment duration. Patients failing shortened first-line treatment were re-treated with a 12-week treatment regimen. Parameter inputs were taken from published studies. RESULTS: The 8-week treatment duration had an expected incremental net monetary benefit of £7737 (95% confidence interval £3242-£11 819) versus the standard 12-week treatment, per 1000 patients. The 6-week treatment had a positive incremental net monetary benefit, although some uncertainty was observed. The probability that the 8- and 6-week treatments were the most cost-effective was 56% and 25%, respectively, whereas that for the 4-week treatment was 17%. Results were generally robust to sensitivity analyses, including a threshold analysis that showed that the 8-week treatment was the most cost-effective at all drug prices lower than £40 000 per 12-week course. CONCLUSIONS: Shortening treatments licensed for 12 weeks to 8 weeks is cost-effective in genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients. There was considerable uncertainty in the estimates for 6- and 4-week treatments, with some indication that the 6-week treatment may be cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of generic pan-genotypic sofosbuvir/velpatasvir versus genotype-dependent direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C treatment.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with low-cost generic direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) available in India and other developing countries needs determination of HCV genotype ("genotype-dependent" regimens). Generic velpatasvir, a DAA that obviates the need for genotype determination ("pan-genotypic" regimen), recently became available but is costlier. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genotype-dependent versus pan-genotypic DAA treatments in India. METHODS: A previously validated microsimulation model, adapted to Indian population, was used to compare the costs and long-term outcomes of three scenarios: no treatment, treatment with genotype-dependent regimens, and treatment with pan-genotypic regimen. Input parameters were derived from literature. Using a payer's perspective and lifetime time horizon, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: At the current price ($US223 for 4 weeks), pan-genotypic regimen was cost-saving compared with no treatment. Compared with genotype-dependent regimens, it increased QALYs by 0.92 and increased costs by $US107 but was deemed cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $US242 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also supported the cost-effectiveness of pan-genotypic regimen. At the reduced price of $US188 for 4 weeks, the pan-genotypic regimen will become cost-neutral to genotype-dependent regimens (current price: $US100 for 4 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: At current prices, velpatasvir-based pan-genotypic regimen is cost-effective for HCV treatment in India where generic drugs are available. A reduction in the prices of pan-genotypic regimen has the potential to make its use cost-saving while simplifying treatment in community-level programs aimed at HCV elimination.

Cost-effectiveness of Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir, Dasabuvir+Ribavirin for US Post-Liver Transplant Recurrent Genotype 1 HCV.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Orthotopic liver transplant patients with recurrent hepatitis C (HCV) historically have had limited treatment options. Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir, dasabuvir and ribavirin (3D+R) was approved by the FDA in December 2014 for liver transplant recipients with recurrent genotype 1 HCV, in whom it is effective and well-tolerated. METHODS: Using a two-phase Markov model, we analysed the cost-effectiveness of 3D+R in liver transplant recipients, the only HCV treatment with FDA approval in this population. As a sensitivity analysis, we also considered the cost-effectiveness of pegylated interferon plus ribavirin, the only other therapy with data from Phase III trials in this population. Patients were given one of three options: 3D+R for 24 weeks, pegylated interferon and ribavirin for 48 weeks (PR48) or no treatment (NT). Patients were then followed through subsequent disease progression until death. Outcome measures analysed were: lifetime risks of liver morbidity and mortality, treatment costs, non-treatment medical expenditures, and quality-adjusted life years. RESULTS: Treatment with 3D+R was associated with a significantly lower lifetime risk of liver-related morbidity and mortality than treatment with PR48 or NT. 3D+R also was associated with a higher gain in quality-adjusted life years (11.3 compared to 8.25 with NT) and lower discounted overall costs ($423,585 compared to $724,757 with NT). CONCLUSIONS: The use of 3D+R for liver transplant recipients with recurrent HCV is an outcome-improving and cost-effective regimen for this population with limited treatment options and large unmet need.

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.

Retigabine as add-on treatment of refractory epilepsy--a cost-utility study in a Swedish setting.

OBJECTIVES: To calculate comparative incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per quality-adjusted life year, QALY) and net marginal benefits for retigabine as add-on treatment for patients with uncontrolled focal seizures as compared to add-on lacosamide treatment and no add-on treatment, respectively. MATERIALS & METHODS: Calculations were performed using a validated decision-tree model. The study population consisted of adult patients with focal-onset epilepsy in published randomized placebo-controlled add-on trials of retigabine or lacosamide. Healthcare utilization and QALY for each treatment alternative were calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using the specification of this model as a basis for Monte Carlo simulations. 2009 prices were used for all costs. RESULTS: Results were reported for a 2-year follow-up period. Retigabine add-on treatment was both more effective and less costly than lacosamide add-on treatment, and the cost per additional QALY for the retigabine no add-on (standard) therapy comparison was estimated at 2009€ 15,753. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold for a QALY of € 50,000, the net marginal values were estimated at 2009€ 605,874 for retigabine vs lacosamide and 2009€ 2,114,203 for retigabine vs no add-on, per 1,000 patients. The probabilistic analyses showed that the likelihood that retigabine treatment is cost-effective is at least 70%. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated cost per additional QALY, for the retigabine vs no add-on treatment comparison, is well within the range of newly published estimates of willingness to pay for an additional QALY. Thus, add-on retigabine treatment for people with focal-onset epilepsy with no/limited response to standard antiepileptic treatment appears to be cost-effective.

[Kidney and bone update : the 5-year history and future of CKD-MBD. Pharmacoeconomics in the field of CKD-MBD].

Pharmacoeconomics (PE) , which contributes to the decisions on the population rather than the patient level such as policy making, provides us with the cost and value of a given drug. Recent Japanese PE studies in the field of CKD-MBD are reviewed in this manuscript. Lanthnum carbonate is not cost effective as a first-line phosphate binder, while cost effective as a second-line drug added on conventional treatments for those with serum phosphate >6.0 mg/dL, as shown in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $34,896. Cinacalcet hydrochloride was found to be cost effective only for those who cannot undergo parathyroidectomy. Taking these findings into account, when cinacalcet have to be used, we should give priority to calcium containing phosphate binders rather than expensive sevelamer or lanthanum from the viewpoint of the medical cost. Moreover, the doses of cinacalcet should be minimized by administering inexpensive vitamin D concomitantly.

Estimating the net value of treating hepatitis C virus using sofosbuvir-velpatasvir in India.

Recently developed direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatments for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have been groundbreaking for their high efficacy across disease genotypes and lack of severe side effects. This study uses a cost-of-illness (COI) approach to estimate the net value conferred by this class of drugs using the cost and efficacy of one of these novel drug combinations, sofosbuvir and velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), recently licensed for generic manufacture in India. This study considers COI of lifetime earnings lost by patients and potential secondarily infected individuals due to disability and premature death from HCV infection. Expected net benefits of treatment are substantial for non-cirrhotic (NC) and compensated cirrhotic (CC) patients (ranging from 5,98,003 INR for NC women to 1,05,25,504 INR for CC men). Increased earnings are not sufficient to fully offset cost of treatment for decompensated cirrhotic individuals but treatment may still be justified on the basis of the intrinsic value of health improvements and other treatment benefits.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Early Treatment of Chronic HCV with Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic Hepatitis C virus (cHCV) is a major health issue worldwide. New effective direct-acting anti-viral (DAA) drugs such as the combination sofosbuvir/velpatasvir, represent an important turning point, given the high sustained virologic response (SVR) rates associated with their use. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost and effects of two different treatment strategies based on sofosbuvir/velpatasvir. Strategy 1: treating all patients, including those in the early stages of fibrosis; Strategy 2: reserving treatments for patients at more advanced stages of disease (≥ F3). The analysis compares the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Strategy 1 versus Strategy 2 in a cohort of HCV-infected patients and a cohort of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients. METHODS: A Markov model simulating the natural history of the disease was built considering a 60-year time horizon and two cohorts of 1000 patients aged ≥ 35 years. Disease morbidity was classified according to the METAVIR classification. The robustness of the model was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: In both cohorts, Strategy 1 results in higher resource consumption and a greater number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with Strategy 2. The ICERs for the cohort of HCV patients and the cohort of co-infected HCV/HIV patients ranged between €15,555-74,804/QALY and €10,708-55,138/QALY, respectively, depending on the assumed cost of the treatment. In the PSA, the ICER distribution remained below the threshold of €30,000/QALY in 96 and 97% of the scenarios in the cohorts of HCV and HCV/HIV patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Extending the treatment of HCV to patients at an early stage of HCV infection is estimated to be cost effective from the perspective of the Italian Healthcare System.

Future Considerations for the Evaluation of Hepatitis C Virus Treatments in Pan-Genotypic Therapy for Noncirrhotic Treatment-Naive Patients.

Given the recent approval of the first pan-genotypic chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy, managed care, health systems, and clinicians will need to evaluate current practices related to essential laboratory assessments used to select therapy. Historically, clinicians and payers required a battery of tests to determine HCV genotype, viral load, degree of fibrosis, and organ function. In light of current and forthcoming approvals of pan-genotypic therapy, clinicians and payers can expect a more competitive marketplace and a downward curve in the price of therapy. Ultimately, this development will lead to the cost of screenings and assessments having an increased role in selecting an optimal HCV therapy. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose. All authors contributed to study concept and design. Calabrese took the lead in data collection, along with Shaya. Data interpretation was performed by Calabrese and Hynicka, along with Rodriguez de Bittner and Shaya. The manuscript was written and revised by Calabrese and Hynicka, along with Rodriguez de Bittner and Shaya.

[How much does the backlog on drug patents cost for health in Brazil?] / Quanto custa o atraso na concessão de patentes de medicamentos para a saúde no Brasil?

The backlog in processing patent applications in Brazil has persisted since the enactment of Law 9,279/1996, when the country resumed granting patents on drugs. The agencies responsible for granting such patents, namely the Brazilian National Patent and Trademark Office (INPI) and the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) cite technical and administrative reasons for the backlog. However, little research has focused on the economic impacts for health due to the inefficiency of the Brazilian patent system. The current study thus proposes a methodology to estimate the extent to which government procurement of medicines is burdened by the backlog in drug patent applications. According to the results, a total of more than BRL 14 million (USD 4.5 million) is spent unnecessarily per year by the Federal Government on just one antiretroviral drug due to the extension of the respective patent's life. Measures to resolve this situation are urgently needed in the three branches of government. These include hiring more staff for the INPI, analysis of bills of law under review in the two houses of the Brazilian Congress to amend the Industrial Property Law, and ruling on direct class action claims of unconstitutionality to suppress the legal mechanisms that allow extending the life of patents.

Economic evaluation of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir for the treatment of chronic genotype 1 hepatitis c virus infection.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir ± ribavirin (OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV) compared with treatment regimens including pegylated interferon (PegIFN) for patients with chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. METHODS: An Excel spreadsheet Markov model tracking progression through stages of liver disease was developed. Costs and patient utilities for liver disease stages were taken from published studies. Rates of disease progression were based on studies of untreated HCV infection and long-term follow-up of those achieving sustained virologic response (SVR) after drug treatment. Impact of OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV and other drug regimens on progression was estimated through SVR rates from clinical trials. Analyses were performed for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients. Impact of alternative scenarios and input parameter uncertainty on the results were tested. RESULTS: For genotype 1 treatment-naive HCV patients, for OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV, PegIFN + ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV), sofosbuvir + PegIFN/RBV, telaprevir + PegIFN/RBV, boceprevir + PegIFN/RBV, lifetime risk of decompensated liver disease was 5.6%, 18.9%, 7.4%, 11.7%, and 14.9%; hepatocellular carcinoma was 5.4%, 9.2%, 5.7%, 7.0%, and 7.4%; and death from liver disease was 8.7%, 22.2%, 10.4%, 14.8%, and 17.6%, respectively. Estimates of the cost-effectiveness of OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients indicated that it dominated all other regimens except PegIFN/RBV. Compared with PegIFN/RBV, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £13,864 and £10,258 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, respectively. The results were similar for alternative scenarios and uncertainty analyses. LIMITATIONS: A mixed-treatment comparison for SVR rates for the different treatment regimens was not feasible, because many regimens did not have comparator arms; instead SVR rates were based on those from recent trials. CONCLUSIONS: OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV is a cost-effective oral treatment regimen for chronic genotype 1 HCV infection compared with standard treatment regimens and is estimated to reduce the lifetime risks of advanced liver disease.

Cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral regimen ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients infected with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1b in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1b (GT1b) therapy ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir (OBV/PTV/r) vs daclatasvir + asunaprevir (DCV/ASV) and no treatment in patients without cirrhosis. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) that compared OBV/PTV/r against DCV/ASV and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) in Y93H mutation-negative, GT1b patients with and without cirrhosis were also included. METHODS: A health state transition model was developed to capture the natural history of HCV. A CEA over a lifetime horizon was performed from the perspective of the public healthcare payer in Japan. Costs, health utilities, and rates of disease progression were derived from published studies. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of OBV/PTV/r and DCV/ASV were extracted from Japanese clinical trials. Analyses were performed for treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Alternative scenarios and input parameter uncertainty on the results were tested. RESULTS: OBV/PTV/r exhibited superior clinical outcomes vs comparators. For OBV/PTV/r, DCV/ASV, and no treatment, the lifetime risk of decompensated cirrhosis in treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis was 0.4%, 1.4%, and 9.2%, and hepatocellular carcinoma was 6.5%, 11.4%, and 49.9%, respectively. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were higher in treatment-naïve and -experienced patients without cirrhosis treated with OBV/PTV/r (16.41 and 16.22) vs DCV/ASV (15.83 and 15.66) or no treatment (11.34 and 11.23). In treatment-naïve and -experienced patients without cirrhosis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of OBV/PTV/r vs DCV/ASV were JPY 1,684,751/QALY and JPY 1,836,596/QALY, respectively; OBV/PTV/r was dominant compared with no treatment. In scenario analysis, including GT1b patients with and without cirrhosis who were Y93H mutation-negative, the ICER of OBV/PTV/r vs DCV/ASV was below the Japanese willingness-to-pay threshold of JPY 5 million/QALY, while the ICER of SOF/LDV vs OBV/PTV/r was above this threshold; thus, OBV/PTV/r was cost-effective. CONCLUSION: OBV/PTV/r appears to be a cost-effective treatment for chronic HCV GT1b infection against DCV/ASV. OBV/PTV/r dominates no treatment in patients without cirrhosis.

Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating Dialkylcarbamoyl Chloride Impregnated Dressings for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Adult Women Undergoing Cesarean Section.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) occur in 1.8%-9.2% of women undergoing cesarean section (CS) and lead to greater morbidity rates and increased treatment costs. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC) impregnated dressings to prevent SSI in women subject to CS. METHODS: Randomized, controlled trial was conducted at the Mazovian Bródno Hospital, a tertiary care center performing approximately 1300 deliveries per year, between June 2014 and April 2015. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either DACC impregnated dressing or standard surgical dressing (SSD) following skin closure. In order to analyze cost-effectiveness of the selected dressings in the group of patients who developed SSI, the costs of ambulatory visits, additional hospitalization, nursing care, and systemic antibiotic therapy were assessed. Independent risk factors for SSI were determined by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Five hundred and forty-three women undergoing elective or emergency CS were enrolled. The SSI rates in the DACC and SSD groups were 1.8% and 5.2%, respectively (p = 0.04). The total cost of SSI prophylaxis and treatment was greater in the control group as compared with the study group (5775 EUR vs. 1065 EUR, respectively). Independent risk factors for SSI included higher pre-pregnancy body mass index (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.08; [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0-1.2]; p < 0.05), smoking in pregnancy (aOR = 5.34; [95% CI: 1.6-15.4]; p < 0.01), and SSD application (aOR = 2.94; [95% CI: 1.1-9.3]; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The study confirmed the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of DACC impregnated dressings in SSI prevention among women undergoing CS.

Cost-Effectiveness of Genotype 1 Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Treatments in Patients Coinfected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: New treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) are highly effective in patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of treatments for genotype 1 (GT1) HCV in HIV-coinfected patients. METHODS: A Markov model based on HCV natural history was used. The base-case analysis included both treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Alternatives were ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir, dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (3D ± R) for 12 or 24 weeks, sofosbuvir plus peginterferon and R (SOF + PR) for 12 weeks, SOF + R for 24 weeks, and no treatment (NT). A subgroup analysis restricted to treatment-naïve, non-cirrhotic patients compared 3D ± R for 12 weeks to SOF plus ledipasvir (LDV) for 12 weeks and NT. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes were measured over a lifetime horizon and included rates of compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related death, total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the base-case, SOF + R was dominated by both SOF + PR and 3D ± R. Compared to SOF + PR, 3D ± R had an ICER of $45,581. The lifetime rates of liver morbidity and mortality were lower among those treated with 3D ± R compared to SOF + PR, SOF + R, or NT. In the subgroup analysis, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY (ICER $27,496). SOF/LDV had an ICER of $104,489 per QALY gained compared to 3D ± R. CONCLUSION: In the GT1 HCV population coinfected with HIV, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT, SOF + R, and SOF + PR. In the treatment-naïve sub-population, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT and SOF/LDV.

Cost-effectiveness of currently recommended direct-acting antiviral treatments in patients infected with genotypes 1 or 4 hepatitis C virus in the US.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral therapies currently recommended for treating genotypes (GT) 1 and 4 chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients in the US. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for CHC from a US payer's perspective over a lifelong time horizon was performed. A Markov model based on the natural history of CHC was used for a population that included treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Treatment alternatives considered for GT1 included ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir ± ribavirin (3D ± R), sofosbuvir + ledipasvir (SOF/LDV), sofosbuvir + simeprevir (SOF + SMV), simeprevir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin (SMV + PR) and no treatment (NT). For GT4 treatments, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + ribavirin (2D + R), SOF/LDV and NT were compared. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs were obtained from published literature. Outcomes included rates of compensated cirrhosis (CC), decompensated cirrhosis (DCC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver-related death (LrD), total costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and QALYs were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: In GT1 patients, 3D ± R and SOF-containing regimens have similar long-term outcomes; 3D ± R had the lowest lifetime risks of all liver disease outcomes: CC = 30.2%, DCC = 5.0 %, HCC = 6.8%, LT = 1.9% and LrD = 9.2%. In GT1 patients, 3D ± R had the lowest cost and the highest QALYs. As a result, 3D ± R dominated these treatment options. In GT4 patients, 2D + R had lower rates of liver morbidity and mortality, lower cost and more QALYs than SOF/LDV and NT. LIMITATIONS: While the results are based on input values, which were obtained from a variety of heterogeneous sources-including clinical trials, the findings were robust across a plausible range of input values, as demonstrated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Among currently recommended treatments for GT1 and GT4 in the US, 3D ± R (for GT1) and 2D + R (for GT4) have a favorable cost-effectiveness profile.

Rivastigmine for Alzheimer's disease: Canadian interpretation of intermediate outcome measures and cost implications.

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies have shown that patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) who are treated with rivastigmine have statistically significantly better scores on 5 scales used to assess AD than control patients receiving placebo. However, the clinical meaning and cost implications of these differences are not clear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical meaning and cost implications of statistically significant results obtained in clinical trials of rivastigmine for the treatment of AD. Potential cost implications for the health care system, caregivers, and society are considered. METHODS: Data on clinical effects of rivastigmine were obtained from published North American and European clinical studies of patients with mild to moderately severe AD receiving rivastigmine 6 to 12 mg/d (n = 828) or placebo (n = 647). Differences in scores on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Function, Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change with both clinical and caregiver information considered, Progressive Deterioration Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Global Deterioration Scale were assessed. A convenience panel of 9 Canadian specialists experienced in the treatment of AD provided their opinions on the clinical importance of the trial results. Chart review was performed to identify specific behaviors that improved, and cost implications of improvements were assessed. RESULTS: The panel determined that statistically significant differences in scores on all scales except the MMSE were likely associated with functional or cognitive differences that were clinically relevant for patients, reflecting stabilization that would have beneficial consequences for caregivers and health care resource use. Subsequent chart review showed that improvement on specific scale items confirmed the physician panel's opinion. Analysis of possible cost implications to society indicated that medication expenditures would be offset largely by delays in the need for paid home care and institutionalization, positive effects on caregiver health, and less time lost from work for the caregiver. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of a Canadian specialist panel, rivastigmine treatment for AD produces clinically relevant effects for patients that are beneficial to caregivers. These effects suggest decreased use of caregiver resources and delays in the need for institutionalization, both of which reduce societal costs.