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.

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 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.

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.

Budget impact analysis of long-acting injectable aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg in bipolar I disorder in the USA.

AIM: To estimate the budget impact (BI) of introducing aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg/300 mg (AOM 400) in the maintenance monotherapy treatment of bipolar I disorder versus long-acting injectables, oral antipsychotics and best supportive care. METHODS: A BI model was developed from a US-payer perspective using treatment-related, hospitalization and adverse event management cost estimates for a hypothetical 1,000,000-member health plan over a 5-year period. RESULTS: Market share of AOM 400 was predicted to increase from 0.6% in Year 1 (current scenario) to 1.3% in Year 5 (predicted scenario), with predicted increases for paliperidone palmitate, asenapine and cariprazine. Treatment-related costs explained the BI increase, while adverse event and hospitalization costs were reduced. The per member per month incremental cost ranged from US$0.06 to US$0.26 in Years 1-5. The largest increases were predicted for paliperidone palmitate. CONCLUSION: As market shares of atypical antipsychotics are predicted to increase, payers may wish to re-evaluate their use.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder with mixed episodes in an Italian context.

INTRODUCTION: Bipolar disorder is a chronic disease characterized by periods of mania or hypomania, depression, or a combination of both (mixed state). Because bipolar disorder is one of the leading causes of disability, it represents an important economic burden on society. Asenapine (ASE) is a new second-generation antipsychotic developed and approved for the treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder. The objective of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ASE compared to olanzapine (OLA) in the treatment of patients experiencing mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in the context of the Italian National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A pharmacoeconomic model was developed to simulate the management of Italian bipolar I patients with mixed episodes over a 5-year time horizon by combining clinical parameters with resource utilization. An expert panel of Italian psychiatrists and health economists was responsible for adapting a UK model to the Italian context. The primary outcome measure of the economic evaluation was the incremental cost effectiveness ratio, where effectiveness is measured in terms of quality adjusted life-years gained. Scenario analyses, sensitivity analyses, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: This pharmacoeconomic model showed that ASE resulted to be dominant over OLA; in fact, ASE was associated with lower direct costs (derived largely by the savings from hospitalizations avoided) and also generated a better quality of life. Results were robust to changes in key parameters; both scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses demonstrated model reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggest that the management of bipolar I patients with mixed episodes using ASE as alternative to OLA can lead to cost saving for the Italian NHS and improve patients quality of life.

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder patients with mixed episodes.

OBJECTIVE: Around one-third of patients with bipolar I disorder (BD-I) experience mixed episodes, characterized by both mania and depression, which tend to be more difficult and costly to treat. Atypical antipsychotics are recommended for the treatment of mixed episodes, although evidence of their efficacy, tolerability, and cost in these patients is limited. This study evaluates, from a UK National Health Service perspective, the cost-effectiveness of asenapine vs olanzapine in BD-I patients with mixed episodes. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model. Efficacy was informed by a post-hoc analysis of two short-term clinical trials, with response measured as a composite Young Mania Rating Score and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale end-point. Probabilities of discontinuation and relapse to manic, mixed, and depressive episodes were sourced from published meta-analyses. Direct costs (2012-2013 values) included drug acquisition, monitoring, and resource use related to bipolar disorder as well as selected adverse events. Benefits were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: For treating mixed episodes, asenapine generated 0.0187 more QALYs for an additional cost of £24 compared to olanzapine over a 5-year period, corresponding to a £1302 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The higher acquisition cost of asenapine was roughly offset by the healthcare savings conferred through its greater efficacy in treating these patients. The model shows that benefits were driven by earlier response to asenapine during acute treatment and were maintained during longer-term follow-up. RESULTS were sensitive to changes in key parameters including short and longer-term efficacy, unit cost, and utilities, but conclusions remained relatively robust. CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS suggest that asenapine is a cost-effective alternative to olanzapine in mixed episode BD-I patients, and may have specific advantages in this population, potentially leading to healthcare sector savings and improved outcomes. Limitations of the analysis stem from gaps in clinical and economic evidence for these patients and should be addressed by future clinical trials.

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Asenapine is the first tetracyclic antipsychotic approved in Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). Asenapine has shown a comparable efficacy profile to other atypical antipsychotics and it is associated with a favourable metabolic profile and less weight gain. This study aimed to assess the economic impact of asenapine compared to other atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of SCZ in Canada. METHODS: A decision tree combined with a Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-utility of asenapine compared with other atypical antipsychotics. The decision tree takes into account the occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms, the probability of switching to a different antipsychotic, and the probability of gaining weight. The Markov model takes into account long-term metabolic complications including diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart diseases, and stroke. In the base-case analysis, asenapine was compared to olanzapine. Asenapine was also compared with other atypical antipsychotics commonly used in Canada in alternative scenarios. Analyses were conducted from both Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives over a 5-year time horizon. RESULTS: In the treatment of SCZ, asenapine is a dominant strategy over olanzapine from both MoH and societal perspectives. Compared to quetiapine, asenapine is also a dominant strategy. Furthermore, asenapine has a favorable economic impact compared to ziprasidone and aripiprazole, as these antipsychotics are not cost-effective compared to asenapine from both MoH and societal perspectives. CONCLUSION: Despite the short time horizon, the lack of compliance data and the assumptions made, this economic evaluation demonstrates that asenapine is a cost-effective strategy compared to olanzapine and to most of the atypical antipsychotics frequently used in Canada.

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of bipolar disorder in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder (BPD) is prevalent and is associated with a significant economic burden. Asenapine, the first tetracyclic antipsychotic approved in Canada for the treatment of BPD, has shown a comparable efficacy profile to other atypical antipsychotics. In addition, it is associated with a favourable metabolic profile and minimal weight gain potential. This study aimed to assess the economic impact of asenapine compared to olanzapine in the treatment of BPD in Canada. METHODS: A decision tree combined with a Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-utility of asenapine compared with olanzapine. The decision tree takes into account the occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), the probability of switching to a different antipsychotic, and the probability of gaining weight. The Markov model takes into account long-term metabolic complications including diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart diseases (CHDs), and stroke. Analyses were conducted from both a Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and a societal perspective over a five-year time horizon with yearly cycles. RESULTS: In the treatment of BPD, asenapine is a dominant strategy over olanzapine from both a MoH and a societal perspective. In fact, asenapine is associated with lower costs and more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that asenapine remains a dominant strategy in 99.2% of the simulations, in both a MoH and a societal perspective, and this result is robust to the many deterministic sensitivity analyses performed. CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation demonstrates that asenapine is a cost-effective strategy compared to olanzapine in the treatment of BPD in Canada.