Dataset Information

Assessment of cost of innovation versus the value of health gains associated with treatment of chronic hepatitis C in the United States: The quality-adjusted cost of care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

New direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy has dramatically increased cure rates for patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), but has also substantially raised treatment costs.

Aim

The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the therapeutic benefit and net costs (i.e. efficiency frontier) and the quality-adjusted cost of care associated with the evolution of treatment regimens for patients with HCV genotype 1 in the United States.

Design

A decision-analytic Markov model.

Data source

Published literature and clinical trial data.

Time horizon

Life Time.

Perspective

Third-party payer.

Intervention

This study compared four approved regimens in treatment-naïve genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C patients, including pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PR), first generation triple therapy (boceprevir + PR and telaprevir + PR), second generation triple therapy (sofosbuvir + PR and simeprevir + PR) and all-oral DAA regimens (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and ombitasvir + paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir ± ribavirin).

Outcome measure

Quality-adjusted cost of care (QACC). QACC was defined as the increase in treatment cost minus the increase in the patient's quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) when valued at $50,000 per QALY.

Results

All-oral therapy improved the average sustained virologic response (SVR) rate to 96%, thereby offsetting the high drug acquisition cost of $85,714, which resulted in the highest benefit based on the efficiency frontier. Furthermore, while oral therapies increased HCV drug costs by $48,350, associated QALY gains decreased quality-adjusted cost of care by $14,120 compared to dual therapy. When the value of a QALY was varied from $100,000 to $300,000, the quality adjusted cost of care compared to dual therapy ranged from - $21,234 to - $107,861, - $89,007 to - $293,130, - $176,280 to - $500,599 for first generation triple, second generation triple, and all-oral therapies, respectively. Primary efficacy and safety measurements for drug regimens were sourced from clinical trials data rather than a real-world setting. Factors such as individual demographic characteristics, comorbidities and alcohol consumption of the individual patients treated may alter disease progression but were not captured in this analysis.

Conclusion

New DAA treatments provide short-term and long-term clinical and economic value to society.

Primary funding source

Gilead Sciences, Inc.

SUBMITTER: Younossi ZM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5072943 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveIsolated coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement are common cardiac operations performed in the United States and serve as platforms for benchmarking. The present national study characterized hospital-level variation in costs and value for coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement.MethodsAdults undergoing elective, isolated coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement were identified in the 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Center quality was defined by the proportion of patients without an adverse outcome (death, stroke, respiratory failure, pneumonia, sepsis, acute kidney injury, and reoperation). High-value hospitals were defined as those with observed-to-expected ratios less than 1 for costs and greater than 1 for quality, whereas the converse defined low-value centers.ResultsOf 318,194 patients meeting study criteria, 71.9% underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and 28.1% underwent aortic valve replacement. Variation in hospital-level costs was evident, with median center-level cost of $36,400 (interquartile range, 29,500-46,700) for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and $38,400 (interquartile range, 32,300-47,700) for aortic valve replacement. Observed-to-expected ratios for quality ranged from 0.2 to 10.9 for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and 0.1 to 11.7 for isolated aortic valve replacement. Hospital factors, including volume and quality, contributed to approximately 9.9% and 11.2% of initial cost variation for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement. High-value centers had greater cardiac surgery operative volume and were more commonly teaching hospitals compared to low-value centers, but had similar patient risk profiles.ConclusionsSignificant variation in hospital costs, quality, and value exists for 2 common cardiac operations. Center volume was associated with value and partly accounts for variation in costs. Our findings suggest the need for value-based care paradigms to reduce expenditures and optimize outcomes.

Project description:We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of two alternative direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment policies in a real-life cohort of hepatitis C virus-infected patients: policy 1, "universal," treat all patients, regardless of fibrosis stage; policy 2, treat only "prioritized" patients, delay treatment of the remaining patients until reaching stage F3. A liver disease progression Markov model, which used a lifetime horizon and health care system perspective, was applied to the PITER cohort (representative of Italian hepatitis C virus-infected patients in care). Specifically, 8,125 patients naive to DAA treatment, without clinical, sociodemographic, or insurance restrictions, were used to evaluate the policies' cost-effectiveness. The patients' age and fibrosis stage, assumed DAA treatment cost of €15,000/patient, and the Italian liver disease costs were used to evaluate quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of policy 1 versus policy 2. To generalize the results, a European scenario analysis was performed, resampling the study population, using the mean European country-specific health states costs and mean treatment cost of €30,000. For the Italian base-case analysis, the cost-effective ICER obtained using policy 1 was €8,775/QALY. ICERs remained cost-effective in 94%-97% of the 10,000 probabilistic simulations. For the European treatment scenario the ICER obtained using policy 1 was €19,541.75/QALY. ICER was sensitive to variations in DAA costs, in the utility value of patients in fibrosis stages F0-F3 post-sustained virological response, and in the transition probabilities from F0 to F3. The ICERs decrease with decreasing DAA prices, becoming cost-saving for the base price (€15,000) discounts of at least 75% applied in patients with F0-F2 fibrosis.ConclusionExtending hepatitis C virus treatment to patients in any fibrosis stage improves health outcomes and is cost-effective; cost-effectiveness significantly increases when lowering treatment prices in early fibrosis stages. (Hepatology 2017;66:1814-1825).