Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for Genotype 1 Hepatitis C Virus Infection in non-VA and VA Populations.

ABSTRACT: Background:Chronic hepatitis C viral (HCV) infection affects millions of Americans. Healthcare systems face complex choices between multiple highly efficacious, costly treatments. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of HCV treatments for chronic, genotype 1 HCV monoinfected, treatment-naïve individuals in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and general U.S. healthcare systems. Methods:We conducted a decision-analytic Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analysis, employing appropriate payer perspectives and time horizons, and discounting benefits and costs at 3% annually. Interventions included: Sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF-LDV); ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir/dasabuvir (3D); sofosbuvir/simeprevir (SOF-SMV); sofosbuvir/pegylated interferon/ribavirin (SOF-RBV-PEG); boceprevir/pegylated interferon/ribavirin (BOC-RBV-PEG); and pegylated interferon/ribavirin (PEG-RBV). Outcomes were sustained virologic response (SVR), advanced liver disease, costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness. Results:SOF-LDV and 3D achieve higher SVR rates compared to older regimens and reduce advanced liver disease (>20% relative to no treatment), increasing QALYs by over 2 years per person. For the non-VA population, at current prices ($5,040 per week for SOF-LDV and $4,796 per week for 3D), SOF-LDV's lifetime cost ($293,370) is $18,000 lower than 3D's because of its shorter treatment duration in subgroups. SOF-LDV costs $17,100 per QALY gained relative to no treatment. 3D costs $208,000 per QALY gained relative to SOF-LDV. Both dominate other treatments and are even more cost-effective for the VA, though VA aggregate treatment costs still exceed $4 billion at SOF-LDV prices of $3,308 per week. Drug prices strongly determine relative cost-effectiveness for SOF-LDV and 3D; With sufficient price reductions (approximately 20-30% depending on the health system), 3D could be cost-effective relative to SOF-LDV. Limitations include the lack of long-term head-to-head regimen effectiveness trials. Conclusions:New HCV treatments are cost-effective in multiple healthcare systems if trial-estimated efficacy is achieved in practice, though, at current prices, total expenditures could present substantial challenges.

SUBMITTER: Liu S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5942888 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of the elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) regimen in patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with severe and end-stage renal disease compared to no treatment.DesignThis study uses a health economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating previously untreated and treatment experienced chronic hepatitis C patients who have severe and end stage renal disease with the elbasvir-grazoprevir regimen versus no treatment in the French context. The lifetime homogeneous markovian model comprises of forty combined health states including hepatitis C virus and chronic kidney disease. The model parameters were from a multicentre randomized controlled trial, ANRS CO22 HEPATHER French cohort and literature. 1000 Monte Carlo simulations of patient health states for each treatment strategy are used for probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 95% confidence intervals calculations. The results were expressed in cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.PatientsThe mean age of patients in the HEPATHER French cohort was 59.6 years and 56% of them were men. 22.3% of patients had a F0 fibrosis stage (no fibrosis), 24.1% a F1 stage (portal fibrosis without septa), 7.1% a F2 stage (portal fibrosis with few septa), 21.4% a F3 stage (numerous septa without fibrosis) and 25% a F4 fibrosis stage (compensated cirrhosis). Among these HCV genotype 1 patients, 30% had severe renal impairment stage 4, 33% had a severe renal insufficiency stage 5 and 37% had terminal severe renal impairment stage 5 treated by dialysis.InterventionFixed-dose combination of direct-acting antiviral agents elbasvir and grazoprevir compared to no-treatment.ResultsEBR/GZR increased the number of life years (6.3 years) compared to no treatment (5.1 years) on a lifetime horizon. The total number of QALYs was higher for the new treatment because of better utility on health conditions (6.2 versus 3.7 QALYs). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was of €15,212 per QALY gained for the base case analysis.ConclusionsThis cost-utility model is an innovative approach that simultaneously looks at the disease evolution of chronic hepatitis C and chronic kidney disease. EBR/GZR without interferon and ribavirin, produced the greatest benefit in terms of life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in treatment-naïve or experienced patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 and stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease including dialysis patients. Based on shape of the acceptability curve, EBR/GZR can be considered cost-effective at a willingness to pay of €20,000 /QALY for patients with renal insufficiency with severe and end-stage renal disease compared to no treatment.

Project description:SPRINT-2 demonstrated that boceprevir (BOC), an oral hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural 3 (NS3) protease inhibitor, added to peginterferon alfa-2b (P) and ribavirin (R) significantly increased sustained virologic response rates over PR alone in previously untreated adult patients with chronic HCV genotype 1. We estimated the long-term impact of triple therapy vs. dual therapy on the clinical burden of HCV and performed a cost-effectiveness evaluation.A Markov model was used to estimate the incidence of liver complications, discounted costs (2010 US$), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of three treatment strategies for treatment-naïve patients with chronic HCV genotype 1. The model simulates the treatment regimens studied in SPRINT-2 in which PR was administered for 4 weeks followed by: 1) placebo plus PR for 44 weeks (PR48); 2) BOC plus PR using response guided therapy (BOC/RGT); and 3) BOC plus PR for 44 weeks (BOC/PR48) and makes projections within and beyond the trial. HCV-related state-transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from previously published studies. All costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%.The model projected approximately 38% and 43% relative reductions in the lifetime incidence of liver complications in the BOC/RGT and BOC/PR48 regimens compared with PR48, respectively. Treatment with BOC/RGT is associated with an incremental cost of $10,348 and an increase of 0.62 QALYs compared to treatment with PR48. Treatment with BOC/PR48 is associated with an incremental cost of $35,727 and an increase of 0.65 QALYs compared to treatment with PR48. The ICERs were $16,792/QALY and $55,162/QALY for the boceprevir-based treatment groups compared with PR48, respectively. The ICER for BOC/PR48 compared with BOC/RGT was $807,804.The boceprevir-based regimens used in the SPRINT-2 trial were projected to substantially reduce the lifetime incidence of liver complications and increase the QALYs in treatment-naive patients with hepatitis C genotype 1. It was also demonstrated that boceprevir-based regimens offer patients the possibility of experiencing great clinical benefit with a shorter duration of therapy. Both boceprevir-based treatment strategies were projected to be cost-effective at a reasonable threshold in the US when compared to treatment with PR48.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for Genotype 1 Hepatitis C Virus Infection in non-VA and VA Populations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets