Survival of patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on survival and safety of sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplant are still equivocal. AIM: We performed a meta-analysis of published studies, with the aim of estimating the 1-year rates of survival, analysing the variability in survival rates and, finally, identifying the factors associated with a longer survival. METHODS: Data from 8 of the 17 selected studies were pooled, while the other 9 were excluded because survival rates were missing. All included studies were retrospective. RESULTS: Overall, the 1-year survival ranged from 18% to 90%. Tumour progression was the main cause of death. The second cause was bleeding, reported only in patients undergoing m-Tor inhibitor therapy. The pooled estimate of 1-year survival was 63%. There was a significant heterogeneity among studies (P < 0.0001). Among the 34 variables assessed by univariate meta-regression, 5 were associated with an increase in the 1-year survival rate: (1) male gender (P = 0.001); (2) Time to progression (P = 0.038); and adverse drug events, divided in (3) gastrointestinal (P = 0.038), (4) cardiovascular (P = 0.029), and (5) dermatological (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Additional data from multicentre prospective studies are required to clearly determine if sorafenib is a safe and acceptable treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplant. Nevertheless, its association with m-Tor inhibitors should be discouraged.

Personalized cost-effectiveness of boceprevir-based triple therapy for untreated patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of boceprevir-based triple therapy compared to peginterferon alpha and ribavirin dual therapy in untreated patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C; patients were discriminated according to the combination of baseline plus on-treatment predictors of boceprevir-based triple therapy. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis performed according to data from the available published literature. The target population was composed of untreated Caucasian patients, aged 50 years, with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C, 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 euro, at 2013 value), life-years gained, quality-adjusted life year, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The robustness of the results was evaluated by multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: According to the baseline predictors of sustained virological response (genotype 1b, low viral load, fibrosis F0-F3, and body mass index) and the 1Log drop of HCV-RNA after the dual therapy lead-in period, boceprevir was cost-effective in different patient profiles. CONCLUSIONS: In untreated genotype 1b chronic hepatitis C patients, the cost-effectiveness of boceprevir-based triple therapy widely ranges according to different profiles of sustained virological response predictors, allowing optimization and personalization of triple therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib treatment in field practice for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

UNLABELLED: The purpose was to assess the cost-effectiveness of sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients incorporating current prices and the results of the recent published field practice SOraFenib Italian Assessment (SOFIA) study. We created a Markov Decision Model to evaluate, in a hypothetical cohort of Caucasian male patients, aged 67 years with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) C HCC, or BCLC B HCC who were unfit or failed to respond to locoregional therapies, well compensated cirrhosis, and with performance status 0-1 according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), the cost-effectiveness of the following strategies: (1) full or dose-adjusted sorafenib for BCLC B and C patients together; (2) full or dose-adjusted sorafenib for BCLC B patients; (3) full or dose-adjusted sorafenib for BCLC C patients. Outcomes include quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In the base-case analysis dose-adjusted sorafenib was the most effective of the evaluated strategies. For dose-adjusted sorafenib, QALY was 0.44 for BCLC B and C patients together, 0.44 for BCLC C patients, and 0.38 for BCLC B patients. The ICER of dose-adjusted sorafenib compared with BSC was €34,534 per QALY gained for BCLC B and C patients together, €27,916 per QALY gained for BCLC C patients, and €54,881 per QALY gained for BCLC B patients. Results were sensitive to BSC survival rate, and sorafenib treatment duration. CONCLUSION: In daily practice dose-adjusted, but not full-dose, sorafenib is a cost-effective treatment compared to BSC in intermediate and advanced HCC.