Dataset Information

Economic study of the value of expanding HCV treatment capacity in Germany.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Today's highly efficacious, low-toxicity interferon-free treatment regimens for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) can cure most patients with HCV in 12-24 weeks. The aim of this study was to understand how the introduction of shorter duration treatment regimens for HCV will impact the capacity for treatment and value to society.

Methods

A Markov model of HCV transmission and progression was constructed, incorporating nationally representative data on HCV prevalence, incidence and progression; mortality, treatment costs, medical expenditures, employment probabilities and disability payments in Germany. The model was stratified by HCV genotype and exposure route (1-time healthcare exposure, injection drug use and sexual activity). Treatment scenarios were based on German treatment guidelines and projected treatment capacity. The impact of different treatment scenarios on disease transmission and prevalence, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment costs, medical expenditures, employment and disability expenditures was calculated.

Results

Depending on their adoption profile, new treatment regimens and protocols introduced over the next several years will increase HCV treatment capacity in Germany by 8-30%, reducing disease transmission and prevalence, increasing QALYs and adding €94-310 million in discounted social value (QALYs plus medical savings net of treatment costs) over a 30-year horizon. Additional social value in the form of higher employment and lower disability would also result.

Conclusions

The introduction of shorter HCV treatment regimens and the resulting increased treatment capacity in Germany would result in large gains to society by reducing disease transmission and prevalence, resulting in longer, healthier, more productive lives for current and future generations.

SUBMITTER: Sbarigia U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5387957 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: The use of tocolytics is central in delaying birth; however, therapeutic options vary in effectiveness and adverse events profiles, which in turn could have consequences for medical resource use and cost of treatment. Betamimetics are commonly used tocolytic agents, but their mechanism of action affects multiple organ systems leading to numerous adverse events. The availability of an oxytocin receptor antagonist, specific for prevention of preterm labour, offers a treatment option that merits further evaluation. We aimed to compare economic implications of tocolysis using atosiban and betamimetics, considering treatment efficacy and safety, as well as cost consequences of treatment of associated adverse events. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified six randomised clinical trials, three of them double-blinded, comparing atosiban with betamimetics, in which tocolysis was initiated within 48 hours of admission. Cost of drug treatment was calculated based on trial protocols and German hospital drug purchase costs. G-DRG Grouper was used to obtain cost per case. The drug regimen was concordant with the German guidelines for the management of preterm labour, with two alternative modalities of fenoterol analysed: continuous or bolus administrations. RESULTS: According to the results of the meta-analysis of the three double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials, atosiban and betamimetics have similar efficacy (RR = 0.99, 95%CI:0.94-1.04, p = 0.772). Compared to betamimetics, use of atosiban was associated with a significantly lower frequency of adverse events for tachycardia, palpitation, vomiting, headache, hyperglycaemia, tremor, dyspnoea, chest pain, hypocalemia and foetal tachycardia. In our economic analysis, cost savings from using atosiban versus continuous, or bolus, fenoterol was 423euro per patient from the payer's perspective. From the hospital's perspective, savings from using atosiban versus continuous fenoterol ranged from 259euro for 18 hours of tocolysis to 105euro for 48 hours; the respective values for bolus fenoterol were 244euro and 55euro. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis atosiban was cost saving versus both continuous and bolus fenoterol in 87%-100% of scenarios. CONCLUSION: In a German setting, atosiban is cost saving versus betamimetics in the treatment of preterm labour from the payer, hospital and combined perspectives. Cost savings stem from the superior safety profile of atosiban.

Project description:Background and aimsAlthough opioid agonist treatment (OAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD) is cost-effective in settings where the HIV epidemic is concentrated among people who inject drugs, OAT coverage in Ukraine remains far below internationally recommended targets. Scale-up is limited by both OAT availability and demand. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a range of plausible OAT scale-up strategies in Ukraine incorporating the potential impact of treatment spillover and the real-world demand for addiction treatment.Design, setting and participantsTen-year horizon (2016-25) modeling study of opioid addiction epidemic and treatment that accommodated potential peer effects in opioid use initiation and supply-induced treatment demand in three Ukrainian cities: Kyiv, Mykolaiv and Lviv, comprising a simulated population of people at risk of and with OUD.MeasurementsIncremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in the simulated population.FindingsAn estimated 12.2-, 2.4- and 13.4-fold OAT capacity increase over 2016 baseline capacity in Kyiv, Mykolaiv and Lviv, respectively, would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of one per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This result is robust to parametric and structural uncertainty. Even under the most ambitious capacity increase, OAT coverage (i.e. the proportion of people with OUD receiving OAT) over a 10-year modeling horizon would be 20, 11 and 17% in Kyiv, Mykolaiv and Lviv, respectively, owing to limited demand.ConclusionsIt is estimated that a substantial increase in opioid agonist treatment (OAT) capacity in three Ukrainian cities would be cost-effective for a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Even a very ambitious capacity increase, however, is unlikely to reach internationally recommended coverage levels. Further increases in coverage may be limited by demand and would require addressing existing structural barriers to OAT access.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is an unmet need for well-tolerated antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) that effectively control focal onset seizures. This study aimed to evaluate the economic value of new AEDs in the treatment of focal onset seizure, with or without secondary generalization, in Finnish adults and adolescents with epilepsy, comparing brivaracetam with perampanel as adjunctive AEDs. METHODS:Economic value was assessed using cost-utility analysis. Periods of AED initiation, titration, response assessment (seizure freedom,???50% reduction, no response), switching in no response or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and death were simulated using a discrete-event simulation model. Responses and switching were simulated based on a comprehensive Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary modeled outcome was the 3%/year discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), payer costs (year 2017 Euro) per patient, and net monetary benefit (NMB) were secondary outcomes. Probabilistic and comprehensive deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS:Brivaracetam was more efficacious and had fewer TEAEs than perampanel and other AEDs. Modeled average 5-year QALYs and costs were 3.671 and €28,297 for brivaracetam and 3.611 and €27,979 for perampanel, respectively. The resulting ICER for brivaracetam versus perampanel was only €5345/QALY gained in a deterministic base case scenario. Brivaracetam had a positive NMB and high probability of cost-effectiveness of €1190 and 71% or €1944 and 80% with the assumed willingness to pay of €25,358 or €38,036/QALY gained, respectively. The primary result was robust, with a positive NMB persistent in all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When switching from brivaracetam to perampanel was excluded from the modeling or switching from perampanel to brivaracetam was included, brivaracetam was cost-saving and more effective than perampanel (dominant). CONCLUSION:These simulated comparisons demonstrated that brivaracetam was more effective and potentially also more affordable than perampanel. Thus, brivaracetam is likely a cost-effective and net beneficial alternative to perampanel for treatment of focal onset seizures. Plain language summary available for this article.