Cost-effectiveness of telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon alpha and ribavirin in previously untreated chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients.

BACKGROUND: Telaprevir (T, TVR) is a direct-acting antiviral (DAA) used for the treatment of genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The sustained virological response (SVR) rates, i.e., undetectable HCV RNA levels 24 weeks after the end of treatment, is what differentiate treatments. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TVR combined with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) alfa-2a plus ribavirin (RBV), with Peg-IFN and RBV (PR) alone or with boceprevir (B, BOC) plus Peg-IFN alfa-2b and RBV, in naïve patients. METHODS: A Markov cohort model of chronic HCV disease progression reflected the pathway of naïve patients initiating anti-HCV therapy. SVR rates were derived from a mixed-treatment comparison including results from Phase II and III trials of TVR and BOC, and trials comparing both PR regimens. SVR has significant impact on survival, quality-of-life, and costs. Incremental cost per life year (LY) gained and quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained were computed at lifetime, adopting the (National Health Service) NHS perspective. Cost and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Sub-group analyses were also performed by interleukin (IL)-28B genotype and fibrosis stage. RESULTS: Higher costs and improved outcomes were associated with T/PR relative to PR alone, resulting in an ICER of £12,733 per QALY gained. T/PR retained a significant SVR advantage over PR alone and was cost-effective regardless of IL-28B genotype and fibrosis stages. T/PR regimen 'dominated' B/PR, generating 0.2 additional QALYs and reducing lifetime cost by £2758. Sensitivity analyses consistently resulted in ICERs less than £30,000/QALY for the T/PR regimen over PR alone. LIMITATIONS: No head-to-head trial provides direct evidence of better efficacy of T/PR vs B/PR. CONCLUSION: The introduction of TVR-based therapy for genotype 1 HCV patients is cost-effective for naïve patients at the £30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, regardless of IL-28B genotype or fibrosis stage.

Cost-effectiveness of telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon alpha and ribavirin in treatment-experienced chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients.

BACKGROUND: Telaprevir (TVR,T) and boceprevir (BOC,B) are direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) used for the treatment of chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TVR combined with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) alfa-2a plus ribavirin (RBV) compared with Peg-IFN alfa-2a and RBV (PR) alone or BOC plus Peg-IFN alfa-2b and RBV in treatment-experienced patients. METHODS: A Markov cohort model of chronic genotype 1 HCV disease progression reflected the pathway of experienced patients retreated with DAA therapy. The population was stratified by previous response to treatment (i.e., previous relapsers, partial responders, and null responders). Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates were derived from a mixed-treatment comparison that included results from separate Phase III trials of TVR and BOC. Incremental cost per life year (LY) gained and quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained were computed at lifetime, adopting the NHS perspective. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Sub-group analyses were carried out by interleukin (IL)-28B genotype. RESULTS: Higher costs and improved outcomes were associated with T/PR relative to PR alone for all experienced patients (ICER of £6079). T/PR was cost-effective for each sub-group population with high SVR advantage in relapsers (ICER of £2658 vs £7593 and £20,875 for partial and null responders). T/PR remained cost-effective regardless of IL-28B sub-type. Compared to B/PR, T/PR prolonged QALYs by 0.57 and reduced lifetime costs by £13,960 for relapsers. For partial responders T/PR was less costly but less efficacious than B/PR, equating to an ICER of £128,117 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: No head-to-head trial provides direct evidence of better efficacy of T/PR vs B/PR. CONCLUSION: T/PR is cost-effective compared with PR alone in experienced patients regardless of treatment history and IL-28B genotype. Compared to B/PR, T/PR is always cost-saving but only more effective in relapsers.