Cost-effectiveness of Oral Regimens for Adolescents With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection.

BACKGROUND: Novel oral regimes have been approved for treating hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in adolescents due to their superior effectiveness and safety. However, its economic outcome is still unclear in this population. The current analysis investigates the cost-effectiveness of novel oral regimens compared with that of pegylated interferon α with ribavirin (PR) therapies in adolescents in the context of the United States and China. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to measure the economic and health outcomes of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LS) for genotypes 1 and 4, sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SR) for genotype 2, and ledipasvir/sofosbuvir/ribavirin (LSR) for genotype 3 HCV infection compared with the outcomes of PR treatment. Clinical costs and utility inputs were gathered from published sources. Lifetime discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured. The uncertainty was facilitated by 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the United States, the ICERs of LS strategy were $14,699 and $14,946/QALY for genotypes 1 and 4 HCV infection, respectively; the ICER of SR strategy for genotype 2 was $42,472/QALY; and the ICER of LSR for genotype 3 was $49,409/QALY in comparison with the PR strategy. In Chinese adolescents, LS for genotypes 1 and 4, SR for genotype 2, and LSR for genotype 3 were the dominant alternatives to the PR strategy. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Novel oral regimes for adolescents with HCV infection are likely to be cost-effective in the context of the United States and China.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir Versus Existing Direct-Acting Antivirals to Treat Chronic Hepatitis C in Japan.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir versus other direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in Japan. METHODS: We developed a health state transition model to capture the natural history of HCV. A cost-effectiveness analysis of DAAs from the perspective of a public healthcare payer in Japan with a lifetime horizon over annual cycles was performed. Treatment attributes, baseline demographics, transition probabilities, health-state utilities, and costs data were extracted from publications. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 2% per annum. In the base case we focused on genotype 1 (GT1) treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis. The scenario analysis examined a pan-genotype treatment in GT1-3 (i.e., portfolio), treatment-naïve, and treatment-experienced patients. The portfolio cost-effectiveness of DAAs was derived by calculating a weighted average of patient segments defined by treatment history, cirrhosis status, and genotype. RESULTS: The base case results indicated that glecaprevir/pibrentasvir was dominant (i.e., generating higher quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] and lower lifetime costs) compared to all other DAAs. The predicted lifetime risk of hepatocellular carcinoma was 3.66% for glecaprevir/pibrentasvir and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, 4.99% for elbasvir/grazoprevir, and 5.27% for daclatasvir/asunaprevir/beclabuvir. In scenario analysis the glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) portfolio dominated the sofosbuvir (SOF)-based portfolio (namely sofosbuvir/ledipasvir in GT1-2 and sofosbuvir + ribavirin in GT3). The base case probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that glecaprevir/pibrentasvir was cost-effective in 93.4% of the simulations for a willingness-to-pay/QALY range of Japanese yen (JPY) 1.6-20 million. The PSA for the portfolio scenario indicated that the GLE/PIB portfolio was cost-effective in 100% of simulations until the willingness-to-pay/QALY reached JPY 5.2 million; this proportion decreased to 69.4% at a willingness-to-pay/QALY of JPY 20 million. Results were also robust in deterministic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In GT1 treatment-naïve non-cirrhotic patients GLE/PIB was a cost-effective strategy compared to other DAAs. When a pan-genotypic framework was used, the GLE/PIB portfolio dominated the SOF-based portfolio.

Cost-effectiveness of treating hepatitis C in Seychelles.

INTRODUCTION: approximately eighty million people around the world are living with hepatitis C, and 700,000 people die every year, due to hepatitis C related complications. In Seychelles, a total of 777 cases of hepatitis C were reported from 2002 to 2016, but up to mid of 2016, the cases were not being treated. Treatment with Harvoni, a combination of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir (SOF/LDV), is now being offered on the condition that the patient does not, or has stopped, injecting drugs. This paper is the first to establish the cost effectiveness of treating all cases of hepatitis C in Seychelles with Harvoni, as compared to no treatment. METHODS: data extracted from literature was used to populate an economic model to calculate cost-effectiveness from Seychelles' government perspective. The model structure was also informed by the systematic review and an accompanying grading of economic models using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) checklist. A Markov model was developed, employing a lifetime horizon and costs and benefits were analysed from a payer's perspective and combined into incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: the direct-acting antiviral (DAA), Harvoni, was found to be cost-saving in Seychelles hepatitis C virus (HCV) cohort, as compared to no treatment, with an ICER of € 753.65/QALY. The treatment was also cost-saving when stratified by gender, with the ICER of male and female being € 783.74/QALY and € 635.20/QALY, respectively. Moreover, the results obtained from acceptability curves showed that treating patients with Harvoni is the most cost-effective option, even for low thresholds. CONCLUSION: treating hepatitis C cases in Seychelles is cost-saving. It is worth developing a treatment programme to include all cases of hepatitis C, regardless of status of drug injection.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Daclatasvir/Sofosbuvir for the treatment of the HCV patients failed after the first line with second generation of DAAs in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Daclatasvir (DCV) combinated with Sofosbuvir (SOF) has shown good efficacy and safety profile for HCV patients. The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DCV/SOF regimen versus HCV alternative treatments for patients who failed to achieve the SVR12 after a first DAA treatment from Italian perspective (PITER cohort). METHODS: A Markov model of HCV chronically infected patients was used to develop two scenarios: 1) DCV+ SOF versus Ledipasvir (LDV)+ SOF in Genotype (Gt)1 and Gt4; 2) DCV+ SOF versus no retreatment option in Gt1, Gt3, and Gt4. The percentage of patients who failed the first line with SOF/Simeprevir/Ribavirin (RBV) or SOF/RBV and were retreated or not according to evidences from PITER cohort, were used to populate the model. HCV resources consumption and SVR rates were quantified using PITER data. Transition probabilities and utility rates were derived from the literature. The outcomes were expressed in terms of Quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of € 30,000/QALY. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, DCV+ SOF represents a cost-effectiveness therapy with ICERs lower than the threshold. The PSA showed robust results, ICERs remain below the threshold in 94% and 99% simulations in Scenario 1 and 2, respectively.

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

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

Modeling the fiscal costs and benefits of alternative treatment strategies in the United Kingdom for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C (HCV) infection causes substantial direct health costs, but also impacts broader societal and governmental costs, such as tax revenue and social protection benefits. This study investigated the broader fiscal costs and benefits of curative interventions for chronic Hepatitis C (CHC) that allow individuals to avoid long-term HCV attributed health conditions. METHODS: A prospective cohort model, assessing the long-term fiscal consequences of policy decisions, was developed for HCV infected individuals, following the generational accounting analytic framework that combines age-specific lifetime gross taxes paid and governmental transfers received (i.e. healthcare and social support costs). The analysis assessed the burden of a theoretical cohort of untreated HCV infected patients with the alternative of treating these patients with a highly efficacious curative intervention (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir [LDV/SOF]). It also compared treating patients at all fibrosis stages (Stages F0-F4) compared to late treatment (Stage F4). RESULTS: Based on projected lifetime work activity and taxes paid, the treated cohort paid an additional £5,900 per patient compared to the untreated cohort. Lifetime government disability costs of £97,555 and £125,359 per patient for treated cohort vs no treatment cohort were estimated, respectively. Lifetime direct healthcare costs in the treated cohort were £32,235, compared to non-treated cohort of £26,424, with an incremental healthcare costs increase of £5,901 per patient. The benefit cost ratio (BCR) of total government benefits and savings relative to government treatment costs (including LDV/SOF) ranged from 1.8-5.6. Treating patients early resulted in 77% less disability costs, 43% lower healthcare costs, and 33% higher tax revenue. CONCLUSION: The ability to cure Hepatitis C offers considerable fiscal benefits beyond direct medical costs and savings attributed to reduced disability costs, public allowances, and improved tax revenue. Changes in parameters, such as productivity, wage growth, and tax rates, can influence the conclusions described here.

Cost-effectiveness of artemisinin-naphthoquine versus artemether-lumefantrine for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Papua New Guinean children.

BACKGROUND: A recent randomized trial showed that artemisinin-naphthoquine (AN) was non-inferior to artemether-lumefantrine (AL) for falciparum malaria and superior for vivax malaria in young Papua New Guinean children. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of these two regimens. METHODS: An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using data from 231 children with Plasmodium falciparum and/or Plasmodium vivax infections in an open-label, randomized, parallel-group trial. Recruited children were randomized 1:1 to receive once daily AN for 3 days with water or twice daily AL for 3 days given with fat. World Health Organisation (WHO) definitions were used to determine clinical/parasitological outcomes. The cost of transport between the home and clinic, plus direct health-care costs, served as a basis for determining each regimen's incremental cost per incremental treatment success relative to AL by Day 42 and its cost per life year saved. RESULTS: In the usual care setting, AN was more effective for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in children aged 0.5-5.9 years. AL and AN were equally efficacious for the treatment of falciparum malaria, however AN had increased anti-malarial treatment costs per patient of $10.46, compared with AL. AN was the most effective regimen for treatment of vivax malaria, but had increased treatment costs of $14.83 per treatment success compared with AL. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst AN has superior overall efficacy for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in PNG children, AL was the less costly regimen. An indicative extrapolation estimated the cost per life year saved by using AN instead of AL to treat uncomplicated malaria to be $12,165 for girls and $12,469 for boys (discounted), which means AN may not be cost-effective and affordable for PNG at current cost. However, AN may become acceptable should it become WHO prequalified and/or should donated/subsidized drug supply become available.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New HCV Treatments in Egyptian Cirrhotic and Non-Cirrhotic Patients: A Societal Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir (SOF) + ribavirin (RBV), SOF + daclatasvir (DCV), and SOF + ledipasvir (LDV) + RBV compared with SOF + pegylated interferon alfa (pegIFN) + RBV in the treatment of patients infected with hepatitis C virus in Egypt. METHODS: Two Markov models were developed on the basis of the Egyptian clinical data and practice and were derived from published sources. The clinical parameters were derived from two sources: the Egypt multicenter national treatment program and previously published randomized clinical trials. The utility of the health states was derived using the available published data. Direct medical costs were obtained from the National Liver Institute database. RESULTS: In noncirrhotic patients, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US $2330 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the SOF + LDV + RBV, -US $9043/QALY for the SOF + DCV, and -US $1332/QALY for the SOF + RBV regimens were yielded. In cirrhotic patients, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of -US $4170/QALY gained for the SOF + LDV + RBV, -US $9515/QALY for the SOF + DCV, and -US $2289/QALY for the SOF + RBV regimens were yielded. The SOF + DCV regimen was the most cost-saving option for cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients. Deterministic sensitivity analyses remain robust. CONCLUSIONS: The present study concludes that the SOF + DCV regimen among other currently available regimens is the most cost-saving option that yields the most favorable future health economic outcomes compared with the SOF + pegIFN + RBV regimen across a broad spectrum of patients, including those with cirrhosis.

Assessing the Budget Impact and Economic Outcomes of the Introduction of Daclatasvir + Asunaprevir and Sofosbuvir/Ledipasvir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The advent of highly efficacious, well-tolerated, all-oral direct-acting antiviral regimens has revolutionized the standard of care for patients chronically infected with hepatitis C virus. As efficacy and safety rates converge, prescribers and payers need to consider value for money. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the health economic value of daclatasvir + asunaprevir versus sofosbuvir/ledipasvir via a cost-effectiveness analysis, and determine the optimal treatment considering both costs and health outcomes in Japan. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir + asunaprevir compared with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir on the basis of a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of pivotal trials and modeling inputs specific to the Japanese setting. A de novo budget impact model was developed and used to predict the cost implications of differing treatment sequences. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness results demonstrated minimal difference in terms of benefit (0.037 fewer QALYs and 0.014 fewer life-years with daclatasvir + asunaprevir); nevertheless, a significant difference in cost was predicted (estimated ¥2,299,700 [US $21,695] reduction with daclatasvir + asunaprevir). The budget impact analysis estimated that treatment with daclatasvir + asunaprevir is expected to be less expensive than treatment with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (as the proportion of patients initially treated with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir increased from 0% to 100%, total costs increased from ¥206 to ¥403 billion [US $1.94 billion to US $3.80 billion]). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of results from an established cost-effectiveness model and a conventional budget impact analysis, treatment with daclatasvir + asunaprevir is expected to be cost-saving compared with treatment with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir in Japan with similar health outcomes, regardless of treatment sequence.

Exploring the Case for Eminent Domain of Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Patents.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a silent epidemic affecting millions of patients and represents the leading indication for liver transplantation in the United States and worldwide. New direct-acting antiviral agents offer the potential to cure patients infected with HCV but it comes at a staggering cost. Given the recent attention to these high-priced HCV therapies and the impact treating individuals with HCV is having on drug expenditures in the United States, there may be a need to revisit drug patent laws and the options the federal government has to ensure patient access to care.

Treating Medicaid patients with hepatitis C: clinical and economic impact.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate change in chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) disease and the economic burden associated with comprehensive treatment of the chronic HCV-infected Medicaid population. STUDY DESIGN: Decision-analytic Markov model. METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with genotype 1 chronic HCV were followed over a lifetime horizon from the third-party payer perspective. Patients entered the model insured under Medicaid and were treated under state-specific restrictions by Metavir fibrosis stage (base case) or all treated (all-patient strategy) with an approved all-oral regimen (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir [LDV/SOF] for 8 weeks or 12 weeks, depending on cirrhosis status, viral load, and state-specific LDV/SOF restrictions). Untreated patients were assumed to age into Medicare at 65 years, where they were treated with LDV/SOF without restriction by fibrotic stage. RESULTS: The sustained virologic response (SVR) rate of the current Medicaid LDV/SOF restriction strategy was 75.2% versus 95.9% if all LDV/SOF-eligible patients were treated under Medicaid. Treating all eligible Medicaid patients with LDV/SOF, regardless of fibrotic stage, was projected to result in 36,752 fewer cases of cirrhosis; 1739 fewer liver transplants; 8169 fewer cases of hepatocellular carcinoma; 16,173 fewer HCV-related deaths; 0.84 additional life-years per patient; and 1.03 additional quality-adjusted life-years per patient. Treating all Medicaid patients with chronic HCV using LDV/SOF resulted in a 39.4% ($3.8 billion) savings and decreased the proportion of total costs attributable to downstream costs of care to 18.3%. CONCLUSIONS: A "treat all" strategy in a Medicaid population resulted in superior SVRs, substantial reductions in downstream negative clinical outcomes, and considerable cost savings. Current restrictive state policies regarding HCV treatment in Medicaid populations must be reassessed in light of these data.

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

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Hepatitis C with Sofosbuvir/Ledipasvir in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Infections with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) are a global public health problem. Long-term consequences are the development of liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Newly introduced direct acting antivirals, especially interferon-free regimens, have improved rates of sustained viral response above 90% in most patient groups and allow treating patients who were ineligible for treatment in the past. These new regimens have replaced former treatment and are recommended by current guidelines. However, there is an ongoing discussion on high pharmaceutical prices. Our aim was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of treating hepatitis C genotype 1 patients with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) treatment in Germany. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used a Markov cohort model to simulate disease progression and assess cost-effectiveness. The model calculates lifetime costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) of SOF/LDV and other strategies. Patients were stratified by treatment status (treatment-naive and treatment-experienced) and absence/presence of cirrhosis. Different treatment strategies were compared to prior standard of care. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate model robustness. RESULTS: Base-case analyses results show that in treatment-naive non-cirrhotic patients treatment with SOF/LDV dominates the prior standard of care (is more effective and less costly). In cirrhotic patients an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 3,383 €/QALY was estimated. In treatment-experienced patients ICERs were 26,426 €/QALY and 1,397 €/QALY for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, respectively. Robustness of results was confirmed in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that treatment with SOF/LDV is cost-effective compared to prior standard of care in all patient groups considering international costs per QALY thresholds.

Cost-Effectiveness of Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment in Hepatitis C-Infected Liver Transplant Candidates With Compensated Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV)(+) donors represent an effective strategy to increase liver donor availability to HCV-infected recipients. However, many HCV(+) transplant candidates are now receiving treatment with direct-acting anti-viral (DAA) agents that lower the risk of posttransplant HCV recurrence but could make the patient ineligible for HCV(+) livers. METHODS: We compared pretransplant DAA treatment versus deferred DAA treatment using a cost-effectiveness decision analysis model to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per quality-adjusted life year gained) from the societal perspective across a range of HCV(+) liver availability rates. For practical considerations, the population modeled was restricted to well-compensated HCV(+) cirrhotics listed for liver transplantation with hepatocellular carcinoma MELD exception points. RESULTS: Under base case conditions, the deferred DAA treatment strategy was found to be the "dominant" strategy. That is, it provided superior health outcomes at cost savings compared to the pretransplant DAA treatment strategy. The pretransplant DAA treatment strategy trended towards cost-effectiveness as HCV(+) donor liver availability declined. However, only in 1 scenario that was highly optimized for favorable outcomes in the pretransplant DAA treatment arm (low availability of HCV(+) organs, low cost of DAA treatment, high cost of HCV recurrence) was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with HCV DAA treatment before transplant less than US $150 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: Deferring HCV treatment until after liver transplant and maintaining access to the expanded pool of HCV(+) donors appears to be the most cost-effective strategy for well-compensated HCV-infected cirrhotics listed for liver transplantation with hepatocellular carcinoma, even in geographic areas of relatively low HCV(+) donor availability.

The Optimal Timing of Hepatitis C Therapy in Transplant Eligible Patients With Child B and C Cirrhosis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ledipasvir (LDV)/sofosbuvir (SOF) has demonstrated high efficacy, safety, and tolerability in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients. There is limited data, however, regarding the optimal timing of therapy in the context of possible liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: We compared the cost-effectiveness of 12 weeks of HCV therapy before or after LT or nontreatment using a decision analytical microsimulation state-transition model for a simulated cohort of 10 000 patients with HCV Genotype 1 or 4 with Child B or C cirrhosis. All model parameters regarding the efficacy of therapy, adverse events and the effect of therapy on changes in model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were derived from the SOLAR-1 and 2 trials. The simulations were repeated with 10 000 samples from the parameter distributions. The primary outcome was cost (2014 US dollars) per quality adjusted life year. RESULTS: Treatment before LT yielded more quality-adjusted life year for less money than treatment after LT or nontreatment. Treatment before LT was cost-effective in 100% of samples at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100 000 in the base-case and when the analysis was restricted to Child B alone, Child C, or MELD > 15. Treatment before transplant was not cost-effective when MELD was 6-10. In sensitivity analyses, the MELD after which treatment before transplant was cost-effective was 13 and the maximum cost of LDV/SOF therapy at which treatment before LT is cost-effective is US $177 381. CONCLUSIONS: From a societal perspective, HCV therapy using LDV/SOF with ribavirin before LT is the most cost-effective strategy for patients with decompensated cirrhosis and MELD score greater than 13.

Impact of introducing subsidized combination treatment with artemether-lumefantrine on sales of anti-malarial monotherapies: a survey of private sector pharmacies in Huambo, Angola.

BACKGROUND: Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) against malaria are subsidized in many African countries, but the impact of subsidy programs in reducing the sales of concomitantly available antimalarial monotherapies is poorly defined. METHODS: Data from The MENTOR initiative, that introduced subsidized artemether-lumefantrine (sAL) in the private sector of Huambo province, Angola, were used. The main response variable was represented by sales of sAL and of monotherapies, measured as number of treatment courses. Sales in private pharmacies of sAL and four antimalarial monotherapies between 2009 and 2013 were organized in four time-periods, and analyzed using generalized linear models for repeated measures. A secondary analysis evaluated changes in relative market share. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 34 pharmacies at four time points, taken from a larger survey that involved 165 pharmacies between June 2009 and March 2013. The sAL, following its introduction, became the dominant antimalarial treatment in the private sector, usually exceeding the total sales of all antimalarial monotherapies combined (1480/2800 total treatment courses, 52.8% of all sales in March 2013). Sales of monotherapies decreased significantly, but did not stop, representing 36.7% (1028/2800) of sales at the end of the survey. CONCLUSIONS: Subsidized ACTs can attain rapidly a high relative market share. Their introduction reduced, but did not eliminate the demand for less effective monotherapies, that might favor parasite resistance.