Show Me the Money: Patients' Perspectives on a Decision Aid for Sacubitril/Valsartan Addressing Out-of-Pocket Cost.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket medication costs for patients who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be an important part of shared decision-making, but cost has generally been excluded from clinical discussions. This study reports patients' perspectives on a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly addresses out-of-pocket costs. METHODS: Structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from 2 medical centers to elicit their views on a publicly available decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly incorporates considerations related to out-of-pocket costs. Qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Key themes identified were general enthusiasm for decision aids for medication decisions, openness on the part of patients to incorporation of cost into decision-making and the decision aid, requests for greater specificity regarding patient-specific cost, and challenges communicating evidence of benefit in a way that allows patients to make cost-benefit analyses for themselves. Patients also raised questions regarding logistical challenges of incorporating a decision aid into the normal clinical and decision-making workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were receptive to the inclusion of out-of-pocket cost as relevant in a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan. Key challenges to effective integration of cost in these decisions include developing mechanisms for acquiring reliable patient-specific cost estimates and addressing patients' difficulties (and sometimes skepticism) applying trial evidence to their own situation. In addition, implementation strategies are important to develop to facilitate decision aid integration for routine medical decisions into clinic workflow.

Conflicting Perspectives on the Value of Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure Revealed During Development of a Decision Aid Focusing on Patient Costs for Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Despite concerns about rising costs in health care, cost is rarely an issue discussed by patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions in a clinical setting. This study aimed to understand stakeholder perspectives on a patient decision aid (PtDA) meant to help patients with heart failure choose between a generic and relatively low-cost heart failure medication (ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker) and a newer, but more expensive, heart failure medication (angiotensin II receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor). METHODS AND RESULTS: Feedback on the PtDA was solicited from 26 stakeholders including patients, clinicians, and the manufacturer. Feedback was recorded and discussed among development team members until consensus regarding both the interpretation of the data and the appropriate changes to the PtDA was reached. Stakeholders found the PtDA sufficient in clarifying the different treatment options for heart failure. However, patients, physicians, and the manufacturer had different opinions on the importance of highlighting cost in a PtDA. Patients indicated issues of cost were crucial to the decision while physicians and manufacturers expressed that the cost issue was secondary and should be de-emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified perspectives on the role of cost in medical decision-making expressed by our participants underscore the importance and challenge of having clear, frank discussions during clinic visits about treatment cost and perceived value.

Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitors-2019 Update.

An abundance of new data regarding the use of the novel drug compound sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients is published every year since the initial publication of the PARADIGM-HF study in 2014. This review summarises the most recent evidence (2019 and onwards) of sacubitril/valsartan in CHF patients as well as provides a critical appraisal of these data. New data are grouped in categories such as real-world data, randomised controlled trials, surrogate end-points, cost-effectiveness, use of sacubitril/valsartan as an anti-hypertensive treatment, effect on diuretic dosing and implementation of this novel compound in other populations. This review of recent literature identified important messages such as early initiation during index hospitalisation or immediately post-discharge, barriers against implementation of this novel treatment modality, analytical issues regarding measuring natriuretic peptides in patients under treatment and extrapolated use of sacubitril/valsartan in other than PARADIGM-HF populations. This update may serve as a very helpful evidence-based resource for practising clinicians, future research planning and health-related policy makers.

Changes in nationwide Medicare and Medicaid expenditures on lipid-lowering therapies after proprotein convertase/subtilisin type 9 inhibitor availability.

BACKGROUND: Several advances in lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy and changes in generic formulation availability occurred between 2013 and 2017. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine nationwide trends in Medicare Part D and Medicaid expenditures on lipid-lowering therapies from 2013 to 2017. METHODS: We aggregated 662.2 million Medicare Part D and Medicaid prescription claims with associated expense data for 2013 to 2017 from the Medicare and Medicaid Drug Spending Dashboards for nine therapeutic classes of lipid-lowering therapies. RESULTS: Total Medicare Part D expenditures on lipid-lowering therapies was $7.01 billion in 2013 and $5.07 billion in 2017. Total Medicaid lipid-lowering therapy expenditures decreased from $440.9 million in 2013 to $398.7 million in 2017. Annual Medicare expenditures on Crestor were $2.2 billion in 2013 and $0.31 billion in 2017. Annual Medicaid Crestor expenditures decreased from $92.4 million in 2013 to $30.1 million in 2017. From 2013 to 2016, Medicare expenditures on Zetia decreased from $0.89 billion to $0.70 billion, whereas Medicaid Zetia expenditures decreased from $38.6 million in 2013 to $25.4 million in 2017. In 2017, PCSK9 inhibitors accounted for $317.3 million and $14.2 million in Medicare and Medicaid expenditures, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall Medicare and Medicaid expenditures on lipid-lowering therapies decreased by $2.5 billion from 2013 to 2017.

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.

Cost Effectiveness of Daclatasvir Plus Asunaprevir Therapy for Chinese Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1b.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Daclatasvir plus asunaprevir has shown superior efficacy and safety for treating hepatitis C virus genotype 1b infection in comparison with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. The objective of this analysis is to investigate the cost effectiveness of daclatasvir plus asunaprevir compared with interferon-α-based therapies from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: A Markov model was established to measure economic and health outcomes of daclatasvir plus asunaprevir compared with general interferon-α plus ribavirin and pegylated interferon plus ribavirin for hepatitis C virus genotype 1b infection. We also considered the two following scenarios: 24 weeks of daclatasvir plus asunaprevir used as a second-line treatment for ineligible/intolerant and non-responding patients with HCV during 48 weeks of first-line interferon-α plus ribavirin (interferon-α plus ribavirin and daclatasvir plus asunaprevir) or pegylated interferon plus ribavirin (pegylated interferon plus ribavirin and daclatasvir plus asunaprevir) treatment. Clinical costs and utility inputs were derived from the published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was shown as costs in US dollars per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Uncertainty was examined by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with interferon-α plus ribavirin, pegylated interferon and ribavirin, interferon-α plus ribavirin plus daclatasvir plus asunaprevir, and pegylated interferon plus ribavirin plus daclatasvir plus asunaprevir strategies, daclatasvir plus asunaprevir gained an additional 0.62, 0.32, 0.20, and 0.15 quality-adjusted life-year with increasing costs of US$11,950, US$671, US$8366, and -$3783, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of pegylated interferon and ribavirin, daclatasvir plus asunaprevir, interferon-α plus ribavirin and daclatasvir plus asunaprevir, and pegylated interferon plus ribavirin and daclatasvir plus asunaprevir against the baseline interferon-α plus ribavirin strategy were US$37,930, US$19,233, US$8495, and US$33,031 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Daclatasvir plus asunaprevir and interferon-α plus ribavirin plus daclatasvir plus asunaprevir were presented as the cost-effective alternatives, and pegylated interferon plus ribavirin and pegylated interferon plus ribavirin and daclatasvir plus asunaprevir strategies dominated. The model outputs were sensitive to a patient's age, discount rate, and the risk ratio between pegylated interferon plus ribavirin and interferon-α plus ribavirin. CONCLUSIONS: Daclatasvir plus asunaprevir in the Chinese setting is likely to be cost effective for treating hepatitis C virus genotype 1b infection.

Cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibition in addition to standard lipid-lowering therapy in patients at high risk for vascular disease.

BACKGROUND: As proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) monoclonal antibodies are entering the market, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibition added to standard lipid-lowering therapy in patient groups at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). METHODS: A lifetime Markov Model was designed to estimate healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for PCSK9 inhibition added to standard therapy in patients with Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH), patients with vascular disease at high MACE recurrence risk, and patients with vascular disease with diabetes mellitus. The balance between costs and health outcomes was established for a broad range of potential relative risk reductions and drug costs. RESULTS: The expected QALY gain per patient and ICER in the main scenario were 1.4 QALYs for €78,485/QALY gained in patients with FH, 0.22 QALYs for €176,735/QALY gained in those with vascular disease and a predicted risk of MACE ≥30% in 10years, and 0.22 QALYs for €295,543/QALY gained in those with vascular disease and diabetes. Results were sensitive to assumptions on PCSK9 inhibitor treatment efficacy, and vascular event risks. CONCLUSION: The costs and effects of PCSK9 inhibition added to standard lipid-lowering treatment in patient groups at high risk for MACE can be estimated and adapted to a specific clinical setting. PCSK9 inhibition could be cost-effective in patients with FH. In patients with vascular disease PCSK9 inhibition is less cost-effective, however, a price development may change clinical practice. This model may aid treatment and reimbursement decisions regarding PCSK9 inhibitors.

Curing Chronic Hepatitis C: A Cost Comparison of the Combination Simeprevir Plus Sofosbuvir vs. Protease-Inhibitor-Based Triple Therapy

ABSTRACT Introduction. Interferon-free, multi-direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is highly effective and well tolerated, but costly. To gain perspective on the evolving economics of HCV therapy, we compared the cost per cure of a multi-DAA regimen with the prior standard of triple therapy. Material and methods. Patients infected with HCV genotype 1 who were treated through the University of Colorado Hepatology Clinic between May 2011 and December 2014 comprised the study population. The multi-DAA regimen of simeprevir plus sofosbuvir (SMV/SOF) was compared to the triple therapy regimen consisting of peginterferon and ribavirin, with either boceprevir or telaprevir (TT). Sustained-virologic response (SVR) rates, total costs per treatment and adverse events were recorded. Total cost per SVR were compared for the two treatments, controlling for patient demographics and clinical characteristics. Results. One hundred eighty-three patients received SMV/SOF (n = 70) or TT (n = 113). Patients receiving SMV/SOF were older, more treatment experienced, and had a higher stage of fibrosis. SVRs were 86% and 59%, average total costs per patient were $152,775 and $95,943, and average total costs per SVR were $178,237 vs. $161,813.49 for SMV/SOF and TT groups, respectively. Medication costs accounted for 98% of SMV/SOF and 85% of TT treatment costs. Conclusion. The high cure rate of multi-DAA treatment of HCV is offset by the high costs of the DAAs, such that the cost per cure from TT to multi-DAA therapy has been relatively constant. In order to cure more patients, either additional financial resources will need to be allocated to the treatment of HCV or drug costs will need to be reduced.

Curing Chronic Hepatitis C: A Cost Comparison of the Combination Simeprevir Plus Sofosbuvir vs. Protease-Inhibitor-Based Triple Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Interferon-free, multi-direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is highly effective and well tolerated, but costly. To gain perspective on the evolving economics of HCV therapy, we compared the cost per cure of a multi-DAA regimen with the prior standard of triple therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients infected with HCV genotype 1 who were treated through the University of Colorado Hepatology Clinic between May 2011 and December 2014 comprised the study population. The multi-DAA regimen of simeprevir plus sofosbuvir (SMV/SOF) was compared to the triple therapy regimen consisting of peginterferon and ribavirin, with either boceprevir or telaprevir (TT). Sustained-virologic response (SVR) rates, total costs per treatment and adverse events were recorded. Total cost per SVR were compared for the two treatments, controlling for patient demographics and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-three patients received SMV/SOF (n = 70) or TT (n = 113). Patients receiving SMV/SOF were older, more treatment experienced, and had a higher stage of fibrosis. SVRs were 86% and 59%, average total costs per patient were $152,775 and $95,943, and average total costs per SVR were $178,237 vs. $161,813.49 for SMV/SOF and TT groups, respectively. Medication costs accounted for 98% of SMV/SOF and 85% of TT treatment costs. CONCLUSION: The high cure rate of multi-DAA treatment of HCV is offset by the high costs of the DAAs, such that the cost per cure from TT to multi-DAA therapy has been relatively constant. In order to cure more patients, either additional financial resources will need to be allocated to the treatment of HCV or drug costs will need to be reduced.

Limiting the access to direct-acting antivirals against HCV: an ethical dilemma.

INTRODUCTION: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection affects about 200 million people worldwide and represents a leading cause of liver-related mortality. Eradication of HCV infection, achieved mainly through direct-acting antivirals (DAA), results in a decrease of mortality and an improvement of quality of life. These drugs have a maximal efficacy and an optimal tolerability. However, their high cost precludes a universal access even in wealthy countries. Areas covered: This article deals with the policies adopted for the use of the new anti-HCV drugs, especially in Europe and most of all in Italy, supposedly the developed country with the highest HCV prevalence. The literature search was performed using Pubmed and Web of Science. Moreover, national regulatory institutional websites were consulted. Expert commentary: The current policy of limitation to the access of the DAA presents a series of ethical issues that makes it non-applicable. A 'treat-all' strategy should resolve all ethical dilemmas, by virtue of the wide benefits of anti-HCV treatment not only for the advanced stage of infection, but also for the initial stages. A reduction in price of the drugs is the actual condition to achieve such a change.

Outcomes and Costs of Treating Hepatitis C Patients in the Era of First Generation Protease Inhibitors - Results from the PAN Study.

1 OBJECTIVE: Chronic hepatitis C virus infections (HCV) cause a significant public health burden. Introduction of telaprevir (TVR) and boceprevir (BOC) has increased sustained virologic response rates (SVR) in genotype 1 patients but were accompanied by higher treatment costs and more side effects. Aim of the study was to assess outcomes and costs of treating HCV with TVR or BOC in routine care. 2 MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data was obtained from a non-interventional study. This analysis relates on a subset of 1,786 patients for whom resource utilisation was documented. Sociodemografic and clinical parameters as well as resource utilisation were collected using a web-based data recording system. Costs were calculated using official remuneration schemes. 3 RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 49.2 years, 58.6% were male. In treatment-naive patients SVR-rates of 62.2% and 55.7% for TVR and BOC were observed (prior relapser: 68.5% for TVR and 63.5% for BOC; prior non-responder: 45.6% for TVR and 39.1% for BOC). Treatment costs are dominated by costs for pharmaceuticals and range between €39,081 and €53,491. We calculated average costs per SVR of €81,347 (TVR) and €70,163 (BOC) in treatment-naive patients (prior relapser: 78,089 €/SVR for TVR and 82,077 €/SVR for BOC; prior non-responder: 116,509 €/SVR for TVR and 110,156 €/SVR for BOC). Quality of life data showed a considerable decrease during treatment. 4 CONCLUSION: Our study is one of few investigating both, outcomes and costs, of treating HCV in a real-life setting. Data can serve as a reference in the discussion of increasing costs in recently introduced agents.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of interferon-free direct-acting antiviral-based regimens for hepatitis C treatment: the French case.

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness and the budget impact of new DAA-based regimen use in France. A Markov model simulated chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treatment interventions with IFN-based and IFN-free regimens at stage of fibrosis ≥F3, ≥F2 or regardless of fibrosis stage, and treatment either with the least or the most expensive combination. It estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). It also assessed the budget impact over 5 years of treating all CHC-screened patients, regardless of fibrosis, assuming ≤20 000 patients treated/year and priority to ≥F3. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted. For genotypes (G) 1-4, the initiation of IFN-free regardless of fibrosis was a cost-effective strategy compared to prior standard of care (SOC) initiated at stage F2: €40 400-88 300/QALY gained in G1; similar results were obtained for patients infected with G4. Considering G2-3, the most cost-effective strategy was IFN-based regimens regardless of fibrosis compared to prior SOC initiated at stage F2: €21 300 and €19 400/QALY gained, respectively; the strategy with IFN-free regimens being more effective but not cost-effective at current costs. The budget impact of treating all CHC-screened patients over 5 years would range between 3.5 and 7.2 billion €, depending on whether one considers the least or the most expensive combination of new DAAs and whether one treats G2-3 with IFN-based or IFN-free new DAAs. In France, treatment initiation with new DDAs regardless of fibrosis stage is cost-effective, but would add 3.5-7.2 billion € to an already overburdened medical care system.

Direct costs of interferon-based and interferon-free direct-acting antiviral regimens for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection.

Given the increasing budget impact of Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment, robust real-world cost data are essential for healthcare decision-makers to evaluate and understand the costs and benefits of these treatments. To determine the direct cost of treating HCV infection in a hospital-based ambulatory care setting in Ireland based on available data from the Irish national hepatitis C treatment registry. A microcosting study of the direct costs of patients with hepatitis C treated with interferon-based and interferon-free direct-acting antiviral regimens was conducted. Attendance at the outpatient clinic for clinical assessment, the quantity of resources used per patient, the medication prescribed and the identification and timing of staff involvement was measured and combined to establish a mean cost of treatment per patient and a cost per sustained virological response (SVR). One hundred and sixty-eight patients were included in the analysis; 119 treated with interferon-based direct-acting antiviral regimens and 47 treated with interferon-free regimens. The mean costs of treatment with the interferon-based regimens per patient were €38 286 (95% CI €35 305-€41 061). The cost per SVR was €62 457. The mean cost of treatment with interferon-free regimens per patient was €55 734 (95% CI €50 906-€60 880). The cost per SVR was €81 873. Real-world cost data provide valuable information to enhance reimbursement decisions. While the direct costs associated with hepatitis C treatment in Ireland are substantial, it is reasonable to expect that the mean cost of treatment and the cost per SVR will reduce as patients with less advanced disease are treated with interferon-free therapies.

The cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir-based regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 4 in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir in combination with other medicinal products for the treatment of patients with hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 4 and advanced liver disease in the UK. METHODS: A published and validated Markov model designed to simulate the natural history of chronic hepatitis C was used to compare daclatasvir with relevant treatment options for patients with hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 4 and a METAVIR score of F3-F4. Patients were defined according to their treatment status; that is, naive, experienced or interferon ineligible/intolerant. Data inputs for the analysis were derived from published sources, UK-specific where possible. A lifetime horizon was used, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Daclatasvir-based regimens are estimated to be cost-effective versus no treatment and established standard-of-care regimens, including telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon-α+ribavirin (PR), boceprevir in combination with PR and PR alone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range: £3715-£15,408). The cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir-based regimens versus emerging regimens (sofosbuvir or simeprevir based) is less consistent, but was dominant or cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range: £1394-£28,393) in all except two scenarios. CONCLUSION: Daclatasvir-based regimens are expected to be highly cost-effective for the majority patients with advanced disease versus relevant comparator regimens, including newer direct-acting antiviral regimens.

[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.

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.

A cost utility analysis of simeprevir used with peginterferon + ribavirin in the management of genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

INTRODUCTION: Triple therapy using a protease inhibitor (PI) with peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) is increasingly used in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The most recently introduced PI, simeprevir (SMV), offers high levels of viral eradication combined with a reduced overall duration of therapy. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of SMV + PR vs PR alone or in combination with telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC) in patients infected with genotype 1 HCV Method: A cost-utility model was constructed, incorporating two phases, capturing the efficacy of therapy in an initial treatment phase, followed by a long-term post-treatment Markov phase, capturing lifetime outcomes according to whether a sustained viral response (SVR) had been achieved on treatment. Dosage regimens were based on the EMA approved label for each treatment. SVR estimates and adverse event rates were derived from a mixed treatment comparison. Baseline characteristics were drawn from an analysis of a UK HCV data-set and clinician opinion. Health state transition probabilities, utilities, and health state costs were drawn from previously published economic analyses. The model considered direct health costs only, and the perspective was that of the UK National Health Service. RESULTS: The model yielded an ICER for SMV + PR vs PR alone of £9725/QALY for treatment-naïve and £7819/QALY for treatment-experienced. Benefit was driven by increased likelihood of achieving SVR, with consequent long-term utility gains. SMV + PR dominated TVR + PR and BOC + PR in both patient groups. This principally reflected the QALY benefit of an increased likelihood of SVR with SMV, combined with lower overall drug costs, due to reduced mean treatment duration. CONCLUSION: Compared to other currently licensed treatment options, SMV + PR represents a cost effective treatment option for patients with chronic genotype 1 HCV infection.

Ethical assessment of hepatitis C virus treatment: The lesson from first generation protease inhibitors.

Since chronic hepatitis C has mostly become curable, issues concerning choice and allocation of treatment are of major concern. We assessed the foremost ethical issues in hepatitis C virus therapy with 1st generation protease inhibitors using the personalist ethical framework within the health technology assessment methodology. Our aim was to identify values at stake/in conflict and to support both the physicians' choices in hepatitis C therapy and social (macro-) allocation decision-making. The ethical assessment indicates that: (1) safety/effectiveness profile of treatment is guaranteed if its use is restricted to the patients subgroups who may benefit from it; (2) patients should be carefully informed, particularly on treatment deferral, and widespread information on these therapies should be implemented; (3) since treatment was proven to be cost-effective, its use is acceptable respecting resource macro-allocation. Concerning individual (micro-) location criteria: (a) criteria for eligibility to treatment should be clearly identified and updated periodically; (b) information on criteria for eligibility/deferral to treatment for specific patients' subgroups should be made widely known. Interferon-based regimens will disappear from use within the next year, with the introduction of highly effective/tolerable combination regimens of direct-acting antivirals, thus profoundly changing social choices. Nonetheless, our model could support future ethical assessment since the evaluation pertaining ethical domains remains generally applicable.