Dataset Information

Population level outcomes and cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C treatment pre- vs postkidney transplantation.

ABSTRACT: Direct-acting antivirals approved for use in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) now exist. HCV-positive (HCV+) ESRD patients have the opportunity to decrease the waiting times for transplantation by accepting HCV-infected kidneys. The optimal timing for HCV treatment (pre- vs posttransplant) among kidney transplant candidates is unknown. Monte Carlo microsimulation of 100 000 candidates was used to examine the cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment pretransplant vs posttransplant by liver fibrosis stage and waiting time over a lifetime time horizon using 2 regimens approved for ESRD patients. Treatment pretransplant yielded higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with posttransplant treatment in all subgroups except those with Meta-analysis of Histological Data in Viral Hepatitis stage F0 (pretransplant: 5.7 QALYs vs posttransplant: 5.8 QALYs). However, treatment posttransplant was cost-saving due to decreased dialysis duration with the use of HCV-infected kidneys (pretransplant: $735 700 vs posttransplant: $682 400). Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000, treatment pretransplant was not cost-effective except for those with Meta-analysis of Histological Data in Viral Hepatitis stage F3 whose fibrosis progression was halted. If HCV+ candidates had access to HCV-infected donors and were transplanted ?9 months sooner than HCV-negative candidates, treatment pretransplant was no longer cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $107 100). In conclusion, optimal timing of treatment depends on fibrosis stage and access to HCV+ kidneys but generally favors posttransplant HCV eradication.

SUBMITTER: Shelton BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6206868 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Population level outcomes and cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C treatment pre- vs postkidney transplantation.

Shelton Brittany A BA Sawinski Deirdre D Linas Benjamin P BP Reese Peter P PP Mustian Margaux M Hungerpiller Mitch M Reed Rhiannon D RD MacLennan Paul A PA Locke Jayme E JE

American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons 20180830 10

Direct-acting antivirals approved for use in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) now exist. HCV-positive (HCV+) ESRD patients have the opportunity to decrease the waiting times for transplantation by accepting HCV-infected kidneys. The optimal timing for HCV treatment (pre- vs posttransplant) among kidney transplant candidates is unknown. Monte Carlo microsimulation of 100 000 candidates was used to examine the cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment pretransplant vs posttransplant by liver ...[more]

PMID: 30058218

Similar Datasets

Project description:Novel treatments for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are highly efficacious but costly. Thus, many insurers cover therapy only in advanced fibrosis stages. The added health benefits and costs of early treatment are unknown.To assess the cost-effectiveness of (1) treating all patients with HCV vs only those with advanced fibrosis and (2) treating each stage of fibrosis.This study used a decision-analytic model for the treatment of HCV genotype 1. The model used a lifetime horizon and societal perspective and was representative of all US patients with HCV genotype 1 who had not received previous treatment. Comparisons in the model included antiviral treatment of all fibrosis stages (METAVIR [Meta-analysis of Histological Data in Virial Hepatitis] stages F0 [no fibrosis] to F4 [cirrhosis]) vs treatment of stages F3 (numerous septa without cirrhosis) and F4 only and by specific fibrosis stage. Data were collected from March 1 to September 1, 2014, and analyzed from September 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015.Six HCV therapy options (particularly combined sofosbuvir and ledipasvir therapy) or no treatment.Cost and health outcomes were measured using total medical costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), calculated as the difference in costs between strategies divided by the difference in QALYs.We simulated 1000 individuals, but present the results normalized to a single HCV-infected person. In the base-case analysis, among patients receiving 8 or 12 weeks of sofosbuvir-ledipasvir treatment, treating all fibrosis stages compared with treating stages F3 and F4 adds 0.73 QALYs and $28,899, for an ICER of $39,475 per QALY gained. Treating at stage F2 (portal fibrosis with rare septa) costs $19,833 per QALY gained vs waiting until stage F3; treating at stage F1 (portal fibrosis without septa), $81,165 per QALY gained compared with waiting until stage F2; and treating at stage F0, $187,065 per QALY gained compared with waiting until stage F1. Results for other regimens show a similar pattern. At base-case drug prices, treating 50% of all eligible US patients with HCV genotype 1 would cost $53 billion. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER for treating all stages vs treating stages F3 and F4 was most sensitive to cohort age, drug costs, utility values in stages F1 and F2, and percentage of patients eligible for 8-week therapy. Except for patients aged 70 years, the ICER remains less than $100,000 per QALY gained. A 46% reduction in cost of sofosbuvir-ledipasvir therapy decreases the ICER for treating at all fibrosis stages by 48%.In this simulated model, treating HCV infection at early stages of fibrosis appeared to improve health outcomes and to be cost-effective but incurred substantial aggregate costs. The findings may have implications for health care coverage policies and clinical decision making.

Dataset Information

Population level outcomes and cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C treatment pre- vs postkidney transplantation.

Publications

Population level outcomes and cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C treatment pre- vs postkidney transplantation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets