Differences in Physician Referral Drive Disparities in Surgical Intervention for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sociodemographic and geographic factors are associated with referral for surgery and receipt of recommended surgical intervention. BACKGROUND: Surgical interventions confer survival advantages compared with palliative therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but disparities exist in use of surgical intervention. Few have investigated referral for surgery as a potential barrier to surgical intervention, and little is known about the effects of patient geographic factors, including proximity to surgical centers. METHODS: Data were abstracted from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry for patients with a diagnosis of HCC from 2006 to 2011. Using hospital procedure volume data from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council, we calculated proximity to a surgical center. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether geographic, racial, socioeconomic, and clinical factors were associated with referral for surgery and receipt of a recommended surgical intervention. RESULTS: Of 3576 patients with HCC, 41.0% were referred for surgery. Patients who lived closer to a surgical center were less likely to be referred for surgery (adjusted odds ratio = 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.92). Surgical referral was less likely among older, male patients with Medicaid insurance and advanced tumor stage at diagnosis. Of those referred, 1276 (87.0%) underwent surgical intervention. Proximity to a surgical center was not associated with receipt of surgical intervention (P = 0.27). Patients with distant tumor stage at diagnosis were less likely to receive recommended surgical intervention (adjusted odds ratio = 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Geographic and sociodemographic disparities in referral for surgery may be major barriers to surgical intervention for patients with HCC.

Cost-effectiveness of new antiviral regimens for treatment-naïve U.S. veterans with hepatitis C.

UNLABELLED: Recently approved, interferon-free medication regimens for treating hepatitis C are highly effective, but extremely costly. We aimed to identify cost-effective strategies for managing treatment-naïve U.S. veterans with new hepatitis C medication regimens. We developed a Markov model with 1-year cycle length for a cohort of 60-year-old veterans with untreated genotype 1 hepatitis C seeking treatment in a typical year. We compared using sofosbuvir/ledipasvir or ombitasvir/ritonavir/paritaprevir/dasabuvir to treat: (1) any patient seeking treatment; (2) only patients with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis; or (3) patients with advanced disease first and healthier patients 1 year later. The previous standard of care, sofosbuvir/simeprevir or sofosbuvir/pegylated interferon/ribavirin, was included for comparison. Patients could develop progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma, undergo transplantation, or die. Complications were less likely after sustained virological response. We calculated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and varied model inputs in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We used the Veterans Health Administration perspective with a lifetime time horizon and 3% annual discounting. Treating any patient with ombitasvir-based therapy was the preferred strategy ($35,560; 14.0 QALYs). All other strategies were dominated (greater costs/QALY gained than more effective strategies). Varying treatment efficacy, price, and/or duration changed the preferred strategy. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, treating any patient with ombitasvir-based therapy was cost-effective in 70% of iterations at a $50,000/QALY threshold and 65% of iterations at a $100,000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Managing any treatment-naïve genotype 1 hepatitis C patient with ombitasvir-based therapy is the most economically efficient strategy, although price and efficacy can impact cost-effectiveness. It is economically unfavorable to restrict treatment to patients with advanced disease or use a staged treatment strategy. (Hepatology 2016;63:428-436).