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.

Hepatitis C in Brazil: lessons learned with boceprevir and telaprevir.

In 2012, the first-generation protease inhibitors telaprevir (TVR) and boceprevir (BOC) were introduced in the Brazilian health system for treatment of chronic hepatitis C, after their approval by the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (CONITEC). However, these medicines were discontinued in 2015. The short period of use in therapy and their high cost require a discussion about the consequences for patients and for the health system of the early incorporation of new therapies. The article presents a qualitative analysis of the incorporation process of both medications in Brazil and the results of a multicenter study that included patients treated with BOC or TVR between January 2011 and December 2015 in five Brazilian cities. The study included 855 patients (BOC: n=247) and (TVR: n=608). The document analysis showed that CONITEC's decision to incorporate BOC and TVR was based on results of phase III clinical trials that compared sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of patients treated with BOC and TVR with rates of those that received placebo. However, these studies included a low percentage of cirrhotic patients. The SVR rates observed in this multicenter study were worse than clinical trials pointed out (BOC: 45.6%; TVR: 51.8%), but similar to those achieved with previously adopted therapies. The discontinuation rate due to adverse events was (BOC: 15.4%; TVR: 12.7%). Based on these unsatisfactory results, the study brings a discussion that goes beyond the therapy outcomes, exploring the incorporation of these high-cost medicines and the related decision-making process, contributing to future decisions in medicine policies and in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of the highly effective direct-acting antivirals in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: In Asia-Pacific where cost is a major concern, peginterferon plus ribavirin (PR) often remain as the standard of care in chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treatment, while the direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are commonly recommended as retreatment. Newer DAAs can achieve a sustained virological response (SVR) of nearly 100% with pan-genotypic coverage, that is "Highly Effective DAAs." We aimed to investigate the most desirable cost range for the Highly Effective DAAs using Hong Kong as an example. METHODS: Markov modeling was performed using PR as the reference strategy. The cost-effectiveness of the Highly Effective DAAs was compared with sofosbuvir-PR (first-line and rescue) and boceprevir-PR therapies. A 50-year-old genotype 1b hepatitis C virus (HCV) infected treatment-naïve patient with METAVIR F3 was used as the base case scenario to reflect the commonest HCV genotype in Hong Kong. RESULTS: The use of PR would incur a lifetime cost of US$35,854 and effectiveness of 14.85 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sofosbuvir-PR as first-line treatment was dominated by other regimes. If Sofosbuvir-PR rescue therapy was used, the drug cost of Highly Effective DAAs should be set below US$43,553, with a cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of US$3035/QALY compared with PR. In regions where Boceprevir-PR was still used as first-line therapy, the desirable drug cost of Highly Effective DAAs would be below US$56,985 to achieve a CER of US$5427/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The most desirable costs of the Highly Effective DAAs would be below US$43,553 if Sofosbuvir-PR rescue therapy is used and below US$56,985 if Boceprevir-PR therapy is used.

[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.

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.

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.

[Incidence, management and costs of adverse effects in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir: first 12 weeks of treatment]. / Incidencia, manejo y coste de los efectos adversos hematológicos y dermatológicos durante las 12primeras semanas de tratamiento con triple terapia para hepatitisC.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to analyze the incidence, management and cost associated to hematological and dermatological adverse effects (AE) in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy (TT) with telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC). METHODS: An analysis was made on the data recorded on patients who started treatment with TVR or BOC associated with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin in a 12-week follow-up period. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included (TVR n=36; BOC n=17). Thrombocytopenia (83% TVR vs. 88% BOC) followed by neutropenia (89% TVR vs. 82% BOC) were the most common AE. Dermatological AE were observed in 32% of patients. Eleven patients required treatment discontinuation (all of them received TVR), and toxicity was the main reason for discontinuation (64%). The percentage of patients who required supportive treatment for management of AE was 66%. The most used supportive treatment was erythropoietin. Eight patients required emergency health care, and 2 were hospitalized due to AE. Total cost of additional supportive resources was 32,522€ (625 [SD=876]€/patient) (TVR 759 [SD=1,022]€/patient vs. BOC 349 [SD=327]€/patient; P>.05). Patients with gradeiii-iv toxicity required greater supportive care with higher costs, compared to patients with gradei-ii toxicity (849 [SD=1,143]€/patient vs. 387 [SD=397]€/patient; P=.053). CONCLUSION: The addition of new protease inhibitors to conventional treatment leads to a higher incidence of hematological AE in our study, compared to data described in clinical trials. The elevated incidence of AE involves the use of supportive care, increasing total costs of therapy.

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.

Cost utility of telaprevir-PR (peginterferon-ribavirin) versus boceprevir-PR and versus PR alone in chronic hepatitis C in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The hepatitis C virus may lead to cirrhosis, liver cancer, liver transplant, and increased mortality. With standard treatment peginterferon-alpha and ribavirin (PR), sustained viral response (SVR) was less than 50 %. SVR rates improve greatly when PR is combined with telaprevir or boceprevir. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the cost utility of telaprevir-peginterferon-ribavirin (TPR) versus PR and boceprevir-peginterferon-ribavirin (BPR) in treatment-naïve (TN) and treatment-experienced (TE) adults with chronic hepatitis C in the Netherlands. METHODS: A Markov model with a lifelong time horizon and annual cycles was developed. Clinical data stemmed from phase III trials (TPR vs PR, BPR vs PR). A mixed treatment comparison (MTC) was developed to compare TPR and BPR indirectly. Unit costs and utilities based on EQ-5D were established in a Dutch cross-sectional study. Cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was calculated according to the societal perspective. RESULTS: Treating TN patients with TPR generates 1.12 additional QALYs with €333 additional cost compared with PR, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of €299/QALY. In TE patients, TPR dominates PR with cost savings (-€7,819) and 1.63 additional QALYs. TPR dominates BPR yielding additional QALYs (0.26 in TN; 0.71 in TE) and cost savings (-€7,296, -€18,144, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: TPR seems a cost-effective alternative to PR in TN patients and dominant in TE patients. TPR was a dominant, more effective and less costly alternative to BPR in both patient types. The cost effectiveness of both TPR and BPR is well below generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds and may be considered cost effective.

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.

The cost-effectiveness of boceprevir for hepatitis C.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is costly to treat and, has high morbidity and mortality. The addition of new protease inhibitors (i.e., boceprevir, telaprevir), to the standard dual therapy with pegylated interferon-α and ribavirin, for the treatment of HCV infection has demonstrated superior efficacy with shorter treatment duration, but at higher drug acquisition costs and incidence of adverse events. Robust economic data are required to inform healthcare decision for the optimal use of these expensive antiviral agents. Accordingly, this review will explore the clinical and economic aspects of boceprevir-based treatment strategies. Important considerations, challenges and gaps for future pharmacoeconomic research in this setting are highlighted.

Should we await IFN-free regimens to treat HCV genotype 1 treatment-naive patients? A cost-effectiveness analysis (ANRS 95141).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In treatment-naive patients mono-infected with genotype 1 chronic HCV, treatments with telaprevir/boceprevir (TVR/BOC)-based triple therapy are standard-of-care. However, more efficacious direct-acting antivirals (IFN-based new DAAs) are available and interferon-free (IFN-free) regimens are imminent (2015). METHODS: A mathematical model estimated quality-adjusted life years, cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of (i) IFN-based new DAAs vs. TVR/BOC-based triple therapy; and (ii) IFN-based new DAAs initiation strategies, given that IFN-free regimens are imminent. The sustained virological response in F3-4/F0-2 was 71/89% with IFN-based new DAAs, 85/95% with IFN-free regimens, vs. 64/80% with TVR/BOC-based triple therapy. Serious adverse events leading to discontinuation were taken as: 0-0.6% with IFN-based new DAAs, 0% with IFN-free regimens, vs. 1-10% with TVR/BOC-based triple therapy. Costs were €60,000 for 12weeks of IFN-based new DAAs and two times higher for IFN-free regimens. RESULTS: Treatment with IFN-based new DAAs when fibrosis stage ⩾F2 is cost-effective compared to TVR/BOC-based triple therapy (€37,900/QALY gained), but not at F0-1 (€103,500/QALY gained). Awaiting the IFN-free regimens is more effective, except in F4 patients, but not cost-effective compared to IFN-based new DAAs. If we decrease the cost of IFN-free regimens close to that of IFN-based new DAAs, then awaiting the IFN-free regimen becomes cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IFN-based new DAAs at stage ⩾F2 is both effective and cost-effective compared to TVR/BOC triple therapy. Awaiting IFN-free regimens and then treating regardless of fibrosis is more efficacious, except in F4 patients; however, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is highly dependent on its cost.

Cost-effectiveness of telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon alpha and ribavirin in treatment-experienced chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients.

BACKGROUND: Telaprevir (TVR,T) and boceprevir (BOC,B) are direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) used for the treatment of chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TVR combined with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) alfa-2a plus ribavirin (RBV) compared with Peg-IFN alfa-2a and RBV (PR) alone or BOC plus Peg-IFN alfa-2b and RBV in treatment-experienced patients. METHODS: A Markov cohort model of chronic genotype 1 HCV disease progression reflected the pathway of experienced patients retreated with DAA therapy. The population was stratified by previous response to treatment (i.e., previous relapsers, partial responders, and null responders). Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates were derived from a mixed-treatment comparison that included results from separate Phase III trials of TVR and BOC. Incremental cost per life year (LY) gained and quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained were computed at lifetime, adopting the NHS perspective. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Sub-group analyses were carried out by interleukin (IL)-28B genotype. RESULTS: Higher costs and improved outcomes were associated with T/PR relative to PR alone for all experienced patients (ICER of £6079). T/PR was cost-effective for each sub-group population with high SVR advantage in relapsers (ICER of £2658 vs £7593 and £20,875 for partial and null responders). T/PR remained cost-effective regardless of IL-28B sub-type. Compared to B/PR, T/PR prolonged QALYs by 0.57 and reduced lifetime costs by £13,960 for relapsers. For partial responders T/PR was less costly but less efficacious than B/PR, equating to an ICER of £128,117 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: No head-to-head trial provides direct evidence of better efficacy of T/PR vs B/PR. CONCLUSION: T/PR is cost-effective compared with PR alone in experienced patients regardless of treatment history and IL-28B genotype. Compared to B/PR, T/PR is always cost-saving but only more effective in relapsers.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of triple therapy with protease inhibitors in treatment-naive hepatitis C patients.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis C is the leading cause of chronic liver disease, representing a significant burden in terms of morbidity, mortality and costs. A new scenario of therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection is being established with the approval of two effective HCV protease inhibitors (PIs) in combination with the standard of care (SOC), peginterferon and ribavirin. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to estimate the cost effectiveness of combination therapy with new PIs (boceprevir and telaprevir) plus peginterferon and ribavirin versus SOC in treatment-naive patients with HCV genotype 1 according to data obtained from clinical trials (CTs). METHODS: A Markov model simulating chronic HCV progression was used to estimate disease treatment costs and effects over patients' lifetimes, in the Spanish national public healthcare system. The target population was treatment-naive patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, demographic characteristics for whom were obtained from the published pivotal CTs SPRINT and ADVANCE. Three options were analysed for each PI based on results from the two CTs: universal triple therapy, interleukin (IL)-28B-guided therapy and dual therapy with peginterferon and ribavirin. A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the uncertainty of certain parameters: age at start of treatment, transition probabilities, drug costs, CT efficacy results and a higher hazard ratio for all-cause mortality for patients with chronic HCV. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also carried out. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of €2012 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were used as outcome measures. According to the base-case analysis, using dual therapy as the comparator, the alternative IL28B-guided therapy presents a more favorable ICER (€18,079/QALY for boceprevir and €25,914/QALY for telaprevir) than the universal triple therapy option (€27,594/QALY for boceprevir and €33,751/QALY for telaprevir), with an ICER clearly below the efficiency threshold for medical interventions in the Spanish setting. Sensitivity analysis showed that age at the beginning of treatment was an important factor that influenced the ICER. A potential reduction in PI costs would also clearly improve the ICER, and transition probabilities influenced the results, but to a lesser extent. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that 95 % of the simulations presented an ICER below €40,000/QALY. Post hoc estimations of sustained virological responses of the IL28B-guided therapeutic option represented a limitation of the study. CONCLUSION: The therapeutic options analysed for the base-case cohort can be considered cost-effective interventions for the Spanish healthcare framework. Sensitivity analysis estimated an acceptability threshold of the IL28B-guided strategy of patients younger than 60 years.