Dataset Information

Modeling cost-effectiveness and health gains of a "universal" versus "prioritized" hepatitis C virus treatment policy in a real-life cohort.

ABSTRACT: 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.

Conclusion

Extending 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).

SUBMITTER: Kondili LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5765396 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Modeling cost-effectiveness and health gains of a "universal" versus "prioritized" hepatitis C virus treatment policy in a real-life cohort.

Kondili Loreta A LA Romano Federica F Rolli Francesca Romana FR Ruggeri Matteo M Rosato Stefano S Brunetto Maurizia Rossana MR Zignego Anna Linda AL Ciancio Alessia A Di Leo Alfredo A Raimondo Giovanni G Ferrari Carlo C Taliani Gloria G Borgia Guglielmo G Santantonio Teresa Antonia TA Blanc Pierluigi P Gaeta Giovanni Battista GB Gasbarrini Antonio A Gasbarrini Antonio A Chessa Luchino L Erne Elke Maria EM Villa Erica E Ieluzzi Donatella D Russo Francesco Paolo FP Andreone Pietro P Vinci Maria M Coppola Carmine C Chemello Liliana L Madonia Salvatore S Verucchi Gabriella G Persico Marcello M Zuin Massimo M Puoti Massimo M Alberti Alfredo A Nardone Gerardo G Massari Marco M Montalto Giuseppe G Foti Giuseppe G Rumi Maria Grazia MG Quaranta Maria Giovanna MG Cicchetti Americo A Craxì Antonio A Vella Stefano S

Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) 20171030 6

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 (represen ...[more]

PMID: 28741307

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWhile the liraglutide effect and action in diabetes (LEAD-6) clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of liraglutide once daily (LIRA) to exenatide twice daily (EXEN) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes, few studies have explored the associated per-patient costs of glycemic goal achievement of their use in a real-world clinical setting.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used integrated medical and pharmacy claims linked with glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) results from the IMS Patient-Centric Integrated Data Warehouse. Patients' ≥18 years and naïve to incretin therapies during a 6-month pre-index period, with ≥1 prescription for LIRA or EXEN between January 2010 and December 2010, were included. Patients with evidence of insulin use (pre- or post-index) were excluded. Only patients who were persistent on their index treatment during a 180-day post-index period were included. Follow-up A1C assessments were based on available laboratory data within 45 days before or after the 6-month post-index point in time. Diabetes-related pharmacy costs over the 6-month post-index period were captured and included costs for both the index drugs and concomitant diabetes medications.Results234 LIRA and 182 EXEN patients were identified for the analysis. The adjusted predicted diabetes-related pharmacy costs per patient over the 6-month post-index period were higher for LIRA compared to EXEN ($2,002 [95% confidence interval (CI): $1,981, $2,023] vs. $1,799 [95% CI: $1,778, $1,820]; P < 0.001). However, a higher adjusted predicted percentage of patients on LIRA reached A1C < 7% goal (64.4% [95% CI: 63.5, 65.3] vs. 53.6% [95% CI: 52.6, 54.6]; P < 0.05), translating into lower average diabetes-related pharmacy costs per successfully treated patient for LIRA as compared to EXEN ($3,108 vs. $3,354; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsAlthough predicted diabetes-related pharmacy costs were greater with LIRA vs. EXEN, a higher proportion of patients on LIRA achieved A1C < 7%, resulting in a lower per-patient cost of A1C goal achievement with LIRA compared to EXEN.

Project description:BackgroundChina has the highest prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection worldwide. Universal HBV screening might enable China to reach the WHO 2030 target of 90% diagnostics, 80% treatment, and 65% HBV-related death reduction, and eventually elimination of viral hepatitis. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of implementing universal HBV screening in China and identified optimal screening strategies.MethodsWe used a Markov cohort model, inputting parameters based on data from previous studies and public databases, to assess the cost-effectiveness of four HBV serological screening strategies in China in different screening scenarios. We simulated universal screening scenarios in 15 adult age groups between 18 and 70 years, with different years of screening implementation (2021, 2026, and 2031) and compared to the status quo (ie, no universal screening); in total, we investigated 180 different screening scenarios. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the different screening strategies and the status quo (current screening strategy). We performed probabilistic and one-way deterministic sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings.FindingsWith a willingness-to-pay level of three times the Chinese gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (US$30 828), all universal screening scenarios in 2021 were cost-effective compared with the status quo. The serum HBsAg/HBsAb/HBeAg/HBeAb/HBcAb (five-test) screening strategy in people aged 18-70 years was the most cost-effective strategy in 2021 (ICER $18 295/quality-adjusted life-years [QALY] gained). This strategy remained the most cost-effective, when the willingness-to-pay threshold was reduced to 2 times GDP per capita. The two-test strategy for people aged 18-70 years became more cost-effective at lower willingness-to-pay levels. The five-test strategy could prevent 3·46 million liver-related deaths in China over the lifetime of the cohort. It remained the most cost-effective strategy when implementation was delayed until 2026 (ICER $20 183/QALY) and 2031 (ICER $23 123/QALY). Screening young people (18-30 years) will no longer be cost-effective in delayed scenarios.InterpretationThe five-test universal screening strategy in people aged 18-70 years, implemented within the next 10 years, is the optimal HBV screening strategy for China. Other screening strategies could be cost-effective alternatives, if budget is limited in rural areas. Delaying strategy implementation reduces overall cost-effectiveness. Early screening initiation will aid global efforts in achieving viral hepatitis elimination.FundingNational Natural Science Foundation of China.

Project description:BackgroundWe undertook this study to assess the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained with the use of pan-genotypic sofosbuvir (SOF) + velpatasvir (VEL) for HCV patients, as compared to the current treatment regimen under the universal free treatment scheme in Punjab state.MethodologyA Markov model depicting natural history of HCV was developed to simulate the progression of disease. Three scenarios were compared: I (Current Regimen)-use of SOF + daclatasvir (DCV) for non-cirrhotic patients and ledipasvir (LDV) or DCV with SOF ± ribavirin (RBV) according to the genotype for cirrhotic patients; II-use of SOF + DCV for non-cirrhotic patients and use of SOF+VEL for compensated cirrhotic patients (with RBV in decompensated cirrhosis patients) and III-use of SOF+VEL for both non-cirrhotic and compensated cirrhotic patients (with RBV in decompensated cirrhosis patients). The lifetime costs, life-years and QALYs were assessed for each scenario, using a societal perspective. All the future costs and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. Finally, the incremental cost per QALY gained was computed for each of scenario II and III, as compared to scenario I and for scenario III as compared to II. In addition, we evaluated the lifetime costs and QALYs among HCV patients for each of scenario I, II and III against the counterfactual of 'no universal free treatment scheme' scenario which involves patients purchasing care in routine setting of from public and private sector.ResultsEach of the scenarios I, II and III dominate over the no universal free treatment scheme scenario, i.e. have greater QALYs and lesser costs. The use of SOF+VEL only for cirrhotic patients (scenario II) increases QALYs by 0.28 (0.03 to 0.71) per person, and decreases the cost by ? 5,946 (? 1,198 to ? 14,174) per patient, when compared to scenario I. Compared to scenario I, scenario III leads to an increase in QALYs by 0.44 (0.14 to 1.01) per person, and is cost-neutral. While the mean cost difference between scenario III and I is-? 2,676 per patient, it ranges from a cost saving of ? 14,835 to incurring an extra cost of ? 3,456 per patient. For scenario III as compared II, QALYs increase by 0.16 (0.03 to 0.36) per person as well as costs by ? 3,086 per patient which ranges from a cost saving of ? 1,264 to incurring an extra cost of ? 6,344. Shift to scenario II and III increases the program budget by 5.5% and 60% respectively.ConclusionOverall, the use of SOF+VEL is highly recommended for the treatment of HCV infection. In comparison to the current practice (scenario I), scenario II is a dominant option. Scenario III is cost-effective as compared to scenario II at a threshold of one-time GDP per capita. If budget is an important constraint, velpatasvir should be given to HCV infected cirrhotic patients. However, if no budget constraint, universal use of velpatasvir for HCV treatment is recommended.

Project description:ImportanceLow- and middle-income countries have a high burden of respiratory syncytial virus lower respiratory tract infections. A monoclonal antibody administered monthly is licensed to prevent these infections, but it is cost-prohibitive for most low- and middle-income countries. Long-acting monoclonal antibodies and maternal vaccines against respiratory syncytial virus are under development.ObjectiveWe estimated the likelihood of respiratory syncytial virus preventive interventions (current monoclonal antibody, long-acting monoclonal antibody, and maternal vaccine) being cost-effective in Mali.DesignWe modeled age-specific and season-specific risks of respiratory syncytial virus lower respiratory tract infections within monthly cohorts of infants from birth to six months. We parameterized with respiratory syncytial virus data from Malian cohort studies, as well as product efficacy from clinical trials. Integrating parameter uncertainty, we simulated health and economic outcomes for status quo without prevention, intra-seasonal monthly administration of licensed monoclonal antibody, pre-seasonal birth dose administration of a long-acting monoclonal antibody, and maternal vaccination. We then calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of each intervention compared to status quo from the perspectives of the government, donor, and society.ResultsAt a price of $3 per dose and from the societal perspective, current monoclonal antibody, long-acting monoclonal antibody, and maternal vaccine would have incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $4280 (95% CI $1892 to $122,434), $1656 (95% CI $734 to $9091), and $8020 (95% CI $3501 to $47,047) per disability-adjusted life-year averted, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceIn Mali, long-acting monoclonal antibody is likely to be cost-effective from both the government and donor perspectives at $3 per dose. Maternal vaccine would need higher efficacy over that measured by a recent trial in order to be considered cost-effective.

Project description:BackgroundNew 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.AimThe 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.DesignA decision-analytic Markov model.Data sourcePublished literature and clinical trial data.Time horizonLife Time.PerspectiveThird-party payer.InterventionThis 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 measureQuality-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.ResultsAll-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.ConclusionNew DAA treatments provide short-term and long-term clinical and economic value to society.Primary funding sourceGilead Sciences, Inc.

Dataset Information

Modeling cost-effectiveness and health gains of a "universal" versus "prioritized" hepatitis C virus treatment policy in a real-life cohort.

Conclusion

Publications

Modeling cost-effectiveness and health gains of a "universal" versus "prioritized" hepatitis C virus treatment policy in a real-life cohort.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets