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.

A NEW HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FOR JAPAN? SIMULATING THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE PRICE OF SIMEPREVIR.

OBJECTIVES: Japanese authorities have announced a plan to introduce a health technology assessment (HTA) system in 2016. This study assessed the potential impact of such a policy on the price of the antivirologic drug simeprevir. METHODS: Taking the antivirologic drug simeprevir as an example, we compared the current Japanese price with hypothetical prices that might result if a U.K. (cost-utility) or German (efficiency frontier) style HTA assessment was in place. RESULTS: The simeprevir unit price under the current Japanese pricing scheme is 13,122 Japanese yen (equivalent to 109.35 U.S. dollars as of April 2015). Depending on the selection of comparators and the pricing method, and assuming that HTA will be used as a basis for price setting, the estimated prices of simeprevir vary up to four times higher than under the current Japanese pricing scheme. CONCLUSIONS: Although the analysis is based on only one drug, it cannot be taken for granted that a new HTA system would reduce public healthcare expenditure in Japan.

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.

Early Treatment in HCV: Is it a Cost-Utility Option from the Italian Perspective?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In Italy, the Italian Pharmaceutical Agency (AIFA) criteria used F3-F4 fibrosis stages as the threshold to prioritise the treatment with interferon (IFN)-free regimens, while in genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C (G1 CHC) patients with fibrosis of liver stage 2, an approach with pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN)-based triple therapy with simeprevir was suggested. The key clinical question is whether, in an era of financial constraints, the application of a universal IFN-free strategy in naïve G1 CHC patients is feasible within a short time horizon. The aim of this study is to perform an economic analysis to estimate the cost-utility of the early innovative therapy in Italy for managing hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients. METHODS: The incremental cost-utility analysis was carried out to quantify the benefits of the early treatment approach in HCV subjects. A Markov simulation model including direct and indirect costs and health outcomes was developed from an Italian National Healthcare Service and societal perspective. A total of 5000 Monte Carlo simulations were performed on two distinct scenarios: standard of care (SoC) which includes 14,000 genotype 1 patients in Italy treated with innovative interferon-free regimens in the fibrosis of liver stages 3 and 4 (F3-F4) versus early-treatment scenario (ETS) where 2000 patients were additionally treated with simeprevir plus PEG-IFN and ribavirin in the fibrosis stage 2 (F2) (based on Italian Medicines Agency AIFA reimbursement criteria). A systematic literature review was carried out to identify epidemiological and economic data, which were subsequently used to inform the model. Furthermore, a one-way probabilistic sensitivity was performed to measure the relationship between the main parameters of the model and the cost-utility results. RESULTS: The model shows that, in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, ETS appeared to be the most cost-utility option compared with both perspective societal (ICER = EUR11,396) and NHS (ICER = EUR14,733) over a time period of 10 years. The cost-utility of ETS is more sustainable as it extends the time period analysis [ICER = EUR 6778 per QALY to 20 years and EUR4474 per QALY to 30 years]. From the societal perspective, the ETS represents the dominant option at a time horizon of 30 years. If we consider the sub-group population of treated patients [16,000 patients of which 2000 not treated in the SoC, the ETS scenario was dominant after only 5 years and the cost-utility at 2 years of simulation. The one-way sensitivity analysis on the main variables confirmed the robustness of the model for the early-treatment approach. CONCLUSION: Our model represents a tool for policy makers and health-care professionals, and provided information on the cost-utility of the early-treatment approach in HCV-infected patients in Italy. Starting innovative treatment regimens earlier keeps HCV-infected patients in better health and reduces the incidence of HCV-related events; generating a gain both in terms of health of the patients and correct resource allocation.

HIV/HCV Co-infection: Overcoming Barriers to Treatment.

A critical step in the eradication of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is access to effective therapy. With the advent of interferon-free regimens, HCV providers and patients gained hope that the success seen in clinical trials could be translated to the real world. However, the exorbitant cost of the new direct-acting antivirals limits access to these medications to the general HCV population, especially underserved patients with public insurance. We used a descriptive qualitative approach to detail the measures necessary and challenges faced by an inner-city nursing team in Washington, DC to obtain the new direct-acting antivirals. Significant time and dedication on the part of providers and staff was required to assist patients with the process of obtaining direct-acting antivirals.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of simeprevir with daclatasvir for non-cirrhotic genotype-1b-naïve patients plus chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: The cost of interferon-free combination therapies remains high to provide widespread access to treatment, regardless of fibrosis stage. AIM: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of simeprevir/daclatasvir (SMV/DCV) therapy in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis C genotype-1b patients with moderate fibrosis. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the natural history of chronic hepatitis C progression. The model estimated lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) for a cohort of patients from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective. The cost-effectiveness threshold considered was €40,000/QALY. The treatment strategies analyzed were SMV/DCV, peginterferon/ribavirin/telaprevir, and peginterferon/ribavirin/boceprevir. A sensitivity analysis was carried out. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the SMV/DCV strategy were €23,774/QALY and €28,524/QALY compared with that of telaprevir or boceprevir triple therapy, respectively, for genotype-1b patients with moderate fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: SMV/DCV combination compared with the standard of care previous to the arrival of second-generation direct-acting antivirals fell below generally accepted willingness-to-pay threshold. Results obtained should be supported by ongoing clinical trials.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir-simeprevir regimens for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients with advanced fibrosis]. / Análisis coste-efectividad del tratamiento de la hepatitis C crónica con sofosbuvir-simeprevir en pacientes con genotipo 1 y fibrosis avanzada.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure the cost-effectiveness of the treatment with simeprevir and sofosbuvir in chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients with F3-F4 levels of fibrosis, according to the results of the COSMOS trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the costs and clinical outcomes from the start of therapy. In the model, the progression was simulated alongside the different health states of the chronic liver disease associated with chronic hepatitis C using whole life as time-horizon. RESULTS: The 12-weeks treatment schemes was below the threshold of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year. On the contrary, despite the 50% cost reduction, the 24-weeks regimen demonstrated a limited level of efficiency when compared with the willingness to pay used in the Spanish medical literature. CONCLUSIONS: This finding would support the introduction of a flat rate in the price of drugs without taking into account the duration of treatment to ensure that treatment with 24 weeks was efficient.

Determinant Factors of the Direct Medical Costs Associated with Genotype 1 Hepatitis C Infection in Treatment-Experienced Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Limited evidence is available on predictors of medical resource utilization (MRU) and related direct costs, especially in treatment-experienced patients infected with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV). This study aimed at investigating patient and treatment characteristics that predict MRU and related non-drug costs in treatment-experienced patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treated with simeprevir (SMV) or telapravir (TVR) in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PegIFN/R). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 709 patients who completed the 72-week ATTAIN trial were included in the study. Cost data were analysed from the UK NHS perspective. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were used to determine patterns and predictors of total MRU-related costs associated with SMV/PegIFN/R and TVR/PegIFN/R. RESULTS: Independent predictors for total MRU-related costs were age, region and the following interaction terms: (1) gender × F3-F4 METAVIR score × baseline viral load (BLVL), (2) body mass index (BMI) × F3-F4 METAVIR score × prior response to PegIFN/R and (3) gender × achievement of SVR at 12 weeks (SVR12) × BLVL. A F3-F4 METAVIR score was a stronger predictor of total MRU-related costs than SVR12. Predictors of adverse events included older age, female gender, low BMI, TVR/PegIFN/R and SVR12. Wilcoxon rank sum test revealed comparable total MRU-related costs between SMV/PegIFN/R and TVR/PegIFN/R. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to describe the relationship between commonly admitted predictors of MRU-related costs and their joint effect on total MRU-related costs in treatment-experienced patients with CHC. The identified predictors of MRU-related costs suggest that significant treatment costs can be avoided by starting treatment early before the disease progresses. Furthermore, adverse events seem to be the most important factor to take into consideration for the choice of treatment, especially when therapeutic options are associated with similar levels of medical resource utilization and associated costs.

Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based treatments for chronic hepatitis C in the US.

BACKGROUND: The standard care of treatment of interferon plus ribavirin (plus protease inhibitor for genotype 1) are effective in 50 % to 70 % of patients with CHC. Several new treatments including Harvoni, Olysio + Sovaldi, Viekira Pak, Sofosbuvir-based regimens characterized with potent inhibitors have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) providing more options for CHC patients. Trials have shown that the new treatments increased the rate to 80% to 95%, though with a substantial increase in cost. In particular, current market pricing of a 12-week course of sofosbuvir is approximately US$84,000. We determine the cost-effectiveness of new treatments in comparison with the standard care of treatments. METHODS: A Markov simulation model of CHC disease progression is used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies based on genotype. The model calculates the expected lifetime medical costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of hypothetical cohorts of identical patients receiving certain treatments. For genotype 1, we compare: (1) peginterferon + ribavirin + telaprevir for 12 weeks, followed by 12 or 24 weeks treatment of peginterferon + ribavirin dependent on HCV RNA level at week 12; (2) Harvoni treatment, 12 weeks; (3) Olysio + Sovaldi, 12 weeks for patients without cirrhosis, 24 weeks for patients with cirrhosis; (4) Viekira Pak + ribavirin, 12 weeks for patients without cirrhosis, 24 weeks for patients with cirrhosis; (5) sofosbuvir + peginterferon + ribavirin, 12 weeks for patients with or without cirrhosis. For genotypes 2 and 3, treatment strategies include: (1) peginterferon + ribavirin, 24 weeks for treatment-naïve patients; (2) sofosbuvir + ribavirin, 12 weeks for patients with genotype 2, 24 weeks for genotype 3; (3) peginterferon + ribavirin as initial treatment, 24 weeks for patients with genotype 2/3, follow-up treatment with sofosbuvir + ribavirin for 12/16 weeks are performed on non-responders and relapsers. RESULTS: Viekira Pak is cost-effective for genotype 1 patients without cirrhosis, whereas Harvoni is cost-effective for genotype 1 patients with cirrhosis. Sofosbuvir-based treatments for genotype 1 in general are not cost-effective due to its substantial high costs. Two-phase treatments with 12-week and 16-week follow-ups are cost-effective for genotype 3 patients and for genotype 2 patients with cirrhosis. The results were shown to be robust over a broad range of parameter values through sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For genotype 1, sofosbuvir-based treatments are not cost-effective compared to Viekira Pak and Harvoni, although a 30% reduction in sofosbuvir price would change this result. Sofosbuvir + ribavirin are cost-effective as second-phase treatments following peginterferon + ribavirin initial treatment for genotypes 2 and 3. However, there is limited data on sofosbuvir-involved treatment, and the results obtained in this study must be interpreted within the model assumptions.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of simeprevir in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin for treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients in Japan.

AIM: Simeprevir (SMV), a protease inhibitor, recently became available for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C (HCV) genotype 1 patients in Japan. The introduction of triple therapy using SMV in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) significantly improves the cure rate. The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SMV with PR (SMV/PR) compared to telaprevir with PR (TVR/PR), PR alone, or no treatment in treatment-naïve patients in Japan. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to reflect the natural disease progression of HCV and to estimate the average life years and lifetime healthcare costs per patient. Sustained virologic response rates were obtained from a network meta-analysis including randomized clinical trials conducted in Japan. Patient baseline characteristics, HCV progression rates, mortality, medical resource utilization, and unit costs were obtained from Japanese sources. Outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios as well as incremental cost and life years. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty around model outcomes. RESULTS: SMV/PR was estimated to be a cost-effective treatment option as more life years were gained by 0.235 and 0.873 years at a reduced cost by ¥263,037 and ¥776,900 compared to TVR/PR and PR alone, respectively. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses, in particular in the comparison of SMV/PR with PR alone. The multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of SMV/PR being cost-effective was relatively constant at ∼87% at any willingness to pay. CONCLUSIONS: SMV/PR is estimated to be the most cost-effective treatment strategy for treatment-naïve HCV genotype 1 patients in Japan.