Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of new antiviral regimens for treatment-naive U.S. veterans with hepatitis C.

ABSTRACT: Recently 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.Managing 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).

SUBMITTER: Chidi AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4718749 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of new antiviral regimens for treatment-naïve U.S. veterans with hepatitis C.

Chidi Alexis P AP Rogal Shari S Bryce Cindy L CL Fine Michael J MJ Good Chester B CB Myaskovsky Larissa L Rustgi Vinod K VK Tsung Allan A Smith Kenneth J KJ

Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) 20151221 2

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>Recently 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/ritona ...[more]

PMID: 26524695

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLow-cost generic direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens for treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) are available in several low-income/middle-income countries, important for treatment scale-up. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of genotype-dependent and pan-genotypic DAA regimens in Iran as an example of a resource-limited setting.MethodsA Markov model was developed to simulate HCV natural history. A decision tree was developed for HCV treatment, assuming four scenarios, including scenario 1: genotyping, sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) for genotype 1, and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (SOF/DCV) for genotype 3; scenario 2: genotyping, SOF/LDV for genotype 1, and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) for genotype 3; scenario 3: no genotyping and SOF/DCV for all; and scenario 4: no genotyping and SOF/VEL for all. A 1-year cycle length was used to calculate the cumulative cost and effectiveness over a lifetime time horizon. We calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using a health system perspective. Costs were converted to US dollars using purchasing power parity exchange rate ($PPP). All costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3%.ResultsAmong people with no cirrhosis, scenario 3 had the minimum cost, compared with which scenario 4 was cost-effective with an ICER of 4583 $PPP per QALY (willingness-to-pay threshold: 9,311 $PPP per QALY). Among both people with compensated or decompensated cirrhosis, scenario 4 was cost saving. In sensitivity analysis, scenario 4 would be also cost-saving among people with no cirrhosis provided a 39% reduction in the cost of 12 weeks SOF/VEL.ConclusionInitiating all patients on pan-genotypic generic DAA regimens with no pretreatment genotyping was cost-effective compared with scenarios requiring pretreatment HCV genotype tests. Among generic pan-genotypic DAA regimens, SOF/VEL was cost-effective, for people with no cirrhosis and cost-saving for those with cirrhosis.

Project description:BackgroundChronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 2 or 3 can be treated with sofosbuvir without interferon. Because sofosbuvir is costly, its benefits should be compared with the additional resources used.ObjectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based treatments for HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection in the United States.DesignMonte Carlo simulation, including deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Data sourcesRandomized trials, observational cohorts, and national health care spending surveys.Target population8 patient types defined by HCV genotype (2 vs. 3), treatment history (naive vs. experienced), and cirrhosis status (noncirrhotic vs. cirrhotic).Time horizonLifetime.PerspectivePayer.InterventionSofosbuvir-based therapies, pegylated interferon-ribavirin, and no therapy.Outcome measuresDiscounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).Results of base-case analysisThe ICER of sofosbuvir-based treatment was less than $100,000 per QALY in cirrhotic patients (genotype 2 or 3 and treatment-naive or treatment-experienced) and in treatment-experienced noncirrhotic patients but was greater than $200,000 per QALY in treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients.Results of sensitivity analysisThe ICER of sofosbuvir-based therapy for treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients with genotype 2 or 3 infection was less than $100,000 per QALY when the cost of sofosbuvir was reduced by approximately 40% and 60%, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, cost-effectiveness conclusions were robust to uncertainty in treatment efficacy.LimitationThe analysis did not consider possible benefits of preventing HCV transmission.ConclusionSofosbuvir provides good value for money for treatment-experienced patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection and those with cirrhosis. At their current cost, sofosbuvir-based regimens for treatment-naive noncirrhotic patients exceed willingness-to-pay thresholds commonly cited in the United States.Primary funding sourceNational Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic hepatitis C virus is difficult to treat and affects approximately 3 million Americans. Protease inhibitors increase the effectiveness of standard therapy, but they are costly. A genetic assay may identify patients most likely to benefit from this treatment advance. OBJECTIVE:To assess the cost-effectiveness of new protease inhibitors and an interleukin (IL)-28B genotyping assay for treating chronic hepatitis C virus. DESIGN:Decision-analytic Markov model. DATA SOURCES:Published literature and expert opinion. TARGET POPULATION:Treatment-naive patients with chronic, genotype 1 hepatitis C virus monoinfection. TIME HORIZON:Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE:Societal. INTERVENTION:Strategies are defined by the use of IL-28B genotyping and type of treatment (standard therapy [pegylated interferon with ribavirin]; triple therapy [standard therapy and a protease inhibitor]). Interleukin-28B-guided triple therapy stratifies patients with CC genotypes to standard therapy and those with non-CC types to triple therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES:Discounted costs (in 2010 U.S. dollars) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS:For patients with mild and advanced fibrosis, universal triple therapy reduced the lifetime risk for hepatocellular carcinoma by 38% and 28%, respectively, and increased quality-adjusted life expectancy by 3% and 8%, respectively, compared with standard therapy. Gains from IL-28B-guided triple therapy were smaller. If the protease inhibitor costs $1100 per week, universal triple therapy costs $102,600 per QALY (mild fibrosis) or $51,500 per QALY (advanced fibrosis) compared with IL-28B-guided triple therapy and $70,100 per QALY (mild fibrosis) and $36,300 per QALY (advanced fibrosis) compared with standard therapy. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS:Results were sensitive to the cost of protease inhibitors and treatment adherence rates. LIMITATION:Data on the long-term comparative effectiveness of the new protease inhibitors are lacking. CONCLUSION:Both universal triple therapy and IL-28B-guided triple therapy are cost-effective when the least-expensive protease inhibitor are used for patients with advanced fibrosis. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:Stanford University.

Project description:BackgroundHepatitis B surface antigen clearance or seroconversion is rarely achieved for patients using nucleoside analogs or pegylated interferon alpha monotherapy approaches. Several recent studies have confirmed the benefit of a combination of these two approaches for selected chronic hepatitis B patients. However, few reports have investigated long-term outcomes or health economic evaluation for hepatitis B surface antigen clearance. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the long-term use of this combination strategy among selected hepatitis B e antigen-negative patients.MethodsDrawing on experience in China, we used a Markov model to simulate disease progression among a population of hepatitis B e antigen-negative chronic hepatitis B patients with surface antigen levels of ≤1,000 IU/mL through a discrete series of health states. We compared nucleoside analog monotherapy to the combination strategy over a prolonged period. We measured lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.ResultsThe combination therapy produced 15.8 quality-adjusted life-years, and cost US dollars (USD) 45,032 per patient. The monotherapy gave 13.9 quality-adjusted life-years, and had a cost of USD 52,064. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the monotherapy (USD -3,755 per quality-adjusted life-year) did not obtain extended dominance over combination therapy. The most cost-effective option was combination therapy among patients with hepatitis B surface antigen levels of ≤10 IU/mL, which had the lowest calculated cost of USD 35,318 and most quality-adjusted life-years (16.7).ConclusionsA long-term combination treatment strategy for selected hepatitis B e antigen-negative chronic hepatitis B patients may prolong quality-adjusted life-years compared with nucleoside analog monotherapy. Chronic hepatitis B patients with a hepatitis B surface antigen level of ≤10 IU/mL were the most cost-effective population under this strategy.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of new antiviral regimens for treatment-naive U.S. veterans with hepatitis C.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of new antiviral regimens for treatment-naïve U.S. veterans with hepatitis C.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets