Dataset Information

Management of treatment-naive chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options.

ABSTRACT: New and more promising therapies for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) genotype 1 (G1) naive patients have recently been approved in the United States and Europe, and several more regimens are expected to become available within the next several years. While this scenario unfolds, it is necessary to develop a rational method to allocate current treatment in CHC G1 patients. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of boceprevir (BOC)- and telaprevir (TVR)-based triple therapy according to different patients' selection strategies. A semi-Markov model of CHC natural history and progression towards end-stage liver disease was built. We considered 3 selection strategies based on METAVIR fibrosis stage: (i) treat all patients with F1-F4 fibrosis, (ii) only F2-F4 and (iii) only F3-F4. For each strategy, TVR interleukin-28B-guided (IL28B-guided) and BOC rapid virologic response-guided (RVR-guided) therapies were applied. The model assessed the costs and outcomes, using a lifetime and 5-year time horizon, and adopting the Italian National Health System perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for F1-F4 strategy relative to F3-F4 was €5132 per quality-adjusted life years gained, across TVR IL-28B-guided therapy, and €7042 in the BOC RVR-guided therapy. Conversely, in the 5-year scenario, the ICER for F1-F4 strategy relative to F3-F4 was €1 818 679 (TVR IL28B-guided) and €1 866 437 (BOC RVR-guided) per end-stage liver disease or death (ESLD-D) avoided. In view of anticipated improvement in the efficacy of future regimens, selective treatment of only patients with advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis with TVR or BOC could represent the most cost-effective strategy to optimize resource utilization.

SUBMITTER: Cortesi PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4519006 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Management of treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options.

Cortesi P A PA Ciaccio A A Rota M M Lim J K JK De Salvia S S Okolicsanyi S S Vinci M M Belli L S LS Mantovani L G LG Strazzabosco M M

Journal of viral hepatitis 20140710 2

New and more promising therapies for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) genotype 1 (G1) naive patients have recently been approved in the United States and Europe, and several more regimens are expected to become available within the next several years. While this scenario unfolds, it is necessary to develop a rational method to allocate current treatment in CHC G1 patients. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of boceprevir (BOC)- and telaprevir (TVR)-based triple therapy according to different pa ...[more]

PMID: 25040391

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/Aims The addition of protease inhibitors to standard of care (SOC) dramatically increases treatment response in Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) genotype 1 patients. Moreover, Interleukin 28B (IL28B) genotyping helps predict responsiveness for these patients. However, the economic implications of incorporating IL28B genotyping in HCV genotype 2 or 3 infected patients are unknown. This study used a treatment algorithm that included IL28B genotype-guided therapy to examine the short and long-term cost-effectiveness of utilizing these single-nucleotide polymorphisms in treatment-naïve HCV genotype 2 or 3 infected patients. Methods A treatment algorithm was constructed to reflect a therapy regimen for treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection using pegylated-interferon, ribavirin, and telaprevir. To examine the role of the IL28B gene in affecting costs and health outcomes, a decision tree was derived from the treatment algorithm in order to populate a predictive cost model for therapy using our treatment algorithm. Results Expected short-term costs of therapy following our algorithm were $21,648.92 and $47,972.84 for the CC and TT genotypes at rs12979860, respectively, and $47,972.84 and $21,648.92 for patients with the CT genotype at rs12979860 and the TG/GG and TT genotypes at rs8099917, respectively. Predicted costs among patients undergoing SOC therapy were $20,758.92. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates for genotypes 2/3 were predicted to occur in 82.2% (8,220 of 10,000) of patients overall—88.83% (8,883 of 10,000) and 65.91% (6,591 of 10,000) for the CC and TT genotypes at rs12979860 and 81.01% (8,101 of 10,000) overall for patients with the CT genotype at rs12979860 [72.08% (7,208 of 10,000) and 86.78% (8,678 of 10,000) for the TG/GG and TT genotypes at rs8099917]. Markov modeling predicted a 27.29 quality-adjusted life-expectancy (QALE) after following our treatment algorithm while adding $7,766.51 in long-term costs. The model predicted only a 26.65 QALE after SOC therapy (while adding $9,599.05 in long-term costs). Conclusions Although short-term treatment costs of an IL28B genotype-guided approach exceed those of SOC for treatment-naïve HCV genotype 2/3 infected patients, Markov modeling suggests that lower long-term costs and improved health outcomes may be achieved by the proposed algorithm and provides a dominant cost-effective strategy for treating this population of HCV infected patients.

Project description:Novel treatments for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are highly efficacious but costly. Thus, many insurers cover therapy only in advanced fibrosis stages. The added health benefits and costs of early treatment are unknown.To assess the cost-effectiveness of (1) treating all patients with HCV vs only those with advanced fibrosis and (2) treating each stage of fibrosis.This study used a decision-analytic model for the treatment of HCV genotype 1. The model used a lifetime horizon and societal perspective and was representative of all US patients with HCV genotype 1 who had not received previous treatment. Comparisons in the model included antiviral treatment of all fibrosis stages (METAVIR [Meta-analysis of Histological Data in Virial Hepatitis] stages F0 [no fibrosis] to F4 [cirrhosis]) vs treatment of stages F3 (numerous septa without cirrhosis) and F4 only and by specific fibrosis stage. Data were collected from March 1 to September 1, 2014, and analyzed from September 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015.Six HCV therapy options (particularly combined sofosbuvir and ledipasvir therapy) or no treatment.Cost and health outcomes were measured using total medical costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), calculated as the difference in costs between strategies divided by the difference in QALYs.We simulated 1000 individuals, but present the results normalized to a single HCV-infected person. In the base-case analysis, among patients receiving 8 or 12 weeks of sofosbuvir-ledipasvir treatment, treating all fibrosis stages compared with treating stages F3 and F4 adds 0.73 QALYs and $28,899, for an ICER of $39,475 per QALY gained. Treating at stage F2 (portal fibrosis with rare septa) costs $19,833 per QALY gained vs waiting until stage F3; treating at stage F1 (portal fibrosis without septa), $81,165 per QALY gained compared with waiting until stage F2; and treating at stage F0, $187,065 per QALY gained compared with waiting until stage F1. Results for other regimens show a similar pattern. At base-case drug prices, treating 50% of all eligible US patients with HCV genotype 1 would cost $53 billion. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER for treating all stages vs treating stages F3 and F4 was most sensitive to cohort age, drug costs, utility values in stages F1 and F2, and percentage of patients eligible for 8-week therapy. Except for patients aged 70 years, the ICER remains less than $100,000 per QALY gained. A 46% reduction in cost of sofosbuvir-ledipasvir therapy decreases the ICER for treating at all fibrosis stages by 48%.In this simulated model, treating HCV infection at early stages of fibrosis appeared to improve health outcomes and to be cost-effective but incurred substantial aggregate costs. The findings may have implications for health care coverage policies and clinical decision making.

Project description:UnlabelledRecently approved, interferon-free medication regimens for treating hepatitis C are highly effective, but extremely costly. We aimed to identify cost-effective strategies for managing treatment-naïve U.S. veterans with new hepatitis C medication regimens. We developed a Markov model with 1-year cycle length for a cohort of 60-year-old veterans with untreated genotype 1 hepatitis C seeking treatment in a typical year. We compared using sofosbuvir/ledipasvir or ombitasvir/ritonavir/paritaprevir/dasabuvir to treat: (1) any patient seeking treatment; (2) only patients with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis; or (3) patients with advanced disease first and healthier patients 1 year later. The previous standard of care, sofosbuvir/simeprevir or sofosbuvir/pegylated interferon/ribavirin, was included for comparison. Patients could develop progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma, undergo transplantation, or die. Complications were less likely after sustained virological response. We calculated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and varied model inputs in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We used the Veterans Health Administration perspective with a lifetime time horizon and 3% annual discounting. Treating any patient with ombitasvir-based therapy was the preferred strategy ($35,560; 14.0 QALYs). All other strategies were dominated (greater costs/QALY gained than more effective strategies). Varying treatment efficacy, price, and/or duration changed the preferred strategy. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, treating any patient with ombitasvir-based therapy was cost-effective in 70% of iterations at a $50,000/QALY threshold and 65% of iterations at a $100,000/QALY threshold.ConclusionManaging any treatment-naïve genotype 1 hepatitis C patient with ombitasvir-based therapy is the most economically efficient strategy, although price and efficacy can impact cost-effectiveness. It is economically unfavorable to restrict treatment to patients with advanced disease or use a staged treatment strategy. (Hepatology 2016;63:428-436).

Project description:Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 is the most prevalent HCV infection in China. Sofosbuvir-based direct antiviral agent (DAA) regimens are the current mainstays of treatment. Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) regimens became reimbursable in China in 2020. Thus, this study aimed to identify the optimal SOF-based regimen and to inform efficient use of healthcare resources by optimizing DAA use in treating HCV genotype 1. Methods and Models: A modeling-based cost-utility analysis was conducted from the payer's perspective targeting adult Chinese patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. Direct medical costs and health utilities were inputted into a Markov model to simulate lifetime experiences of chronically infected HCV patients after receiving SOF/LDV, SOF/VEL or the traditional strategy of pegylated interferon (pegIFN) + ribavirin (RBV). Discounted lifetime cost and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed and compared to generate the incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR). An ICUR below the threshold of 31,500 $/QALY suggests cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of model findings. Results: Both SOF/LDV and SOF/VEL regimens were dominant to the pegIFN + RBV regimen by creating more QALYs and incurring less cost. SOF/LDV produced 0.542 more QALYs but cost $10,390 less than pegIFN + RBV. Relative to SOF/LDV, SOF/VEL had an ICUR of 168,239 $/QALY which did not meet the cost-effectiveness standard. Therefore SOF/LDV was the optimal strategy. These findings were robust to linear and random variations of model parameters. However, reducing the SOF/VEL price by 40% would make this regimen the most cost-effective option. Conclusions: SOF/LDV was found to be the most cost-effective treatment, and SOF/VEL was also economically dominant to pegIFN + RBV. These findings indicated that replacing pegIFN + RBV with DAA regimens could be a promising strategy.

Dataset Information

Management of treatment-naive chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options.

Publications

Management of treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets