Cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab versus high-dose interferon as an adjuvant therapy in resected high-risk melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant ipilimumab was found to improve the overall survival and reduce toxicity compared to high-dose interferon (HDI) in patients with resected, high-risk melanoma. However, the cost of ipilimumab is substantially higher than HDI. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab as an adjuvant treatment in melanoma from a healthcare perspective. METHODS: We designed a Markov model simulating resected, high-risk melanoma patients receiving either ipilimumab or HDI. Transition probabilities, including risks of survival, disease progression, and toxicity, were ascertained from clinical trial data. Costs and quality of life measurements (health utilities) were extracted from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as incremental costs divided by incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), assessed cost-effectiveness. ICERs <$100,000/QALY were deemed cost-effective. We measured model uncertainty with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In our base case model, ipilimumab increased costs by $107,100 and increased effectiveness by 0.43 QALY, yielding an ICER of $392,600/QALY. Our model was moderately sensitive to the costs of ipilimumab, though the cost of ipilimumab would need to decrease by 44% for ipilimumab to become cost-effective compared to HDI. The model was not sensitive to survival, toxicity, or other costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that HDI would remain the cost-effective treatment option 96.2% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant ipilimumab increases the survival and decreases the toxicity compared to HDI in resected, high-risk melanoma patients, though this would not be considered cost-effective due to the high price of ipilimumab.

Therapeutic Interferon Interchange in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Lowers Health Care and Pharmacy Expenditures with Comparable Safety.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with a less-active (fewer relapses or complete recovery from relapses, less radiologic burden of disease, or no or limited disease-related disability) relapsing form of multiple sclerosis (MS), interferon (IFN) beta-1b subcutaneous is similar in efficacy to IFN beta-1a intramuscular and subcutaneous. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of patient interchange from an IFN beta-1a to IFN beta-1b. METHODS: This was a retrospective, pre-post study of adult patients with relapsing MS who underwent interchange from an IFN beta-1a to IFN beta-1b between April 15, 2014, and April 30, 2015. Health care financial and utilization outcomes between the 6 months before and after interchange were compared, and safety outcomes after interchange were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 36 primarily white, middle-age, and female patients underwent interchange. Monthly total health care and pharmacy expenditures decreased by approximately 40% and 44%, respectively, from pre-to-post interchange (p < 0.001). Health care utilization was unchanged (p < 0.05). Seven (43.8%) patients underwent interchange back to IFN beta-1a intramuscular. No patients underwent interchange back to IFN beta-1a subcutaneous. The most common adverse effect reported after interchange was injection-site reaction. CONCLUSION: Health care expenditures decreased and adverse effects were limited among patients with MS who underwent an interchange from an IFN beta-1a to IFN beta-1b. These findings suggest that a therapeutic interchange between IFNs for patients with less-active MS disease is well tolerated. Further research is needed to determine the impact of such an interchange on disease progression.

Economic evaluation of Zepatier for the management of HCV in the Italian scenario.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a major health issue worldwide. New generation of direct-active antiviral medications is an epoch-making turning point in the management of HCV infections. OBJECTIVE: Conducing a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the combination of elbasvir/grazoprevir and sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin for the management of all HCV patients (even those in the initial stages of fibrosis). METHODS: A Markov model was built on the natural history of the disease to assess the efficacy of the alternatives. The outcomes are expressed in terms of quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and result in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). RESULTS: Elbasvir/grazoprevir implies an expenditure of €21,104,253.74 with a gain of 19,287.90 QALYs and sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin implies an expenditure of €31,904,410.11 with a gain of 18,855.96 QALYs. Elbasvir/grazoprevir is thus a dominant strategy. CONCLUSION: Consideration should be given to the opportunity cost of not treating patients with a lower degree of fibrosis (F0-F2).

Health Care Cost for Multiple Sclerosis: The Case of a Health Insurer in Colombia.

BACKGROUND: There have been many studies on the cost of multiple sclerosis in countries with high prevalence, whereas in Latin America such analyses are few. Taking into consideration the burden of this disease and the high financial impact of treatment on the health care system, it is necessary to know the behavior of cost of illness. OBJECTIVES: To describe the direct costs associated with health care in patients with multiple sclerosis affiliated with a health insurer in Colombia. METHODS: An analysis of direct costs of disease was performed from the perspective of the third-party payer. A direct measurement from the technical costing "top-down" approach was used. Data were adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2014 US dollars. RESULTS: The average annual cost per patient for the country was $29,339 (2010), $20,956 (2011), $23,892 (2012), $24,148 (2013), and $22,688 (2014). Drug therapy represented 86.1% of the total cost. Between 2010 and 2013, interferons accounted for the largest proportion of the costs of drug treatment (98.5% to 53%), whereas fingolimod showed an increase and accounted for 47% in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Medications account for the largest proportion of disease costs, with few variations in the last 5 years; nevertheless, the increase in the use of new pharmaceuticals poses a challenge to maintain the financial balance of health insurance.

Emerging Trends in Non-Interferon-Based Genotype-Specific Antiviral Agents: Pharmaceutical Perspectives.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) presents a serious global health threat. Initially, the health-care community mainly focused on interferon (IFN)-based therapeutic options to eradicate HCV, but with the passage of time, these applications became unsuitable due to some serious side effects related to the use of IFN. In recent years, research conducted on different phases of HCV's life cycle has opened a new gateway for the use of a direct-acting new generation of anti-HCV agents. Their safer and ultrarapid response has made possible the introduction of triple therapy and use of IFN-free therapeutic treatment strategies. However, the high cost of these successful therapies has raised serious concerns, particularly in low-income countries, and this has forced pharmaceutical scientists to explore more cost-effective IFN-free alternatives for the treatment of HCV. In this article, we have briefly summarized the latest data regarding the research and development of non-IFN-based antiviral agents. The studies mentioned in this article highlight the significance of non-IFN-based direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents. Economical alternative anti-HCV agents are expected to become available in the near future for better and more cost-effective treatments of HCV.

Identification of groups with poor cost-effectiveness of peginterferon plus ribavirin for naïve hepatitis C patients with a real-world cohort and database.

BACKGROUND: For decades, peginterferon and ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV) have been the standard-of-care for chronic hepatitis C virus (CHC) infection. However, the actual cost-effectiveness of this therapy remains unclear. We purposed to explore the real-world cost effectiveness for subgroups of treatment-naïve CHC patients with PegIFN/RBV therapy in a large real-world cohort using a whole population database. METHODS: A total of 1809 treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients (829 HCV genotype 1 [G1] and 980 HCV G2) treated with PegIFN/RBV therapies were linked to the National Health Insurance Research Database, covering the entire population of Taiwan from 1998 to 2013 to collect the total medical-care expenses of outpatient (antiviral agents, nonantiviral agents, laboratory, and consultation costs) and inpatient (medication, logistic, laboratory, and intervention costs) visits. The costs per treatment and the cost per sustained virological response (SVR) achieved were calculated. RESULTS: The average medical-care cost was USD $4823 (±$2984) per treatment and $6105 (±$3778) per SVR achieved. With SVR rates of 68.6% and 87.8%, the cost/SVR was significantly higher in G1 than those in G2 patients, respectively ($8285 vs $4663, P < .001). Treatment-naïve G1 patients of old ages, those with advanced fibrosis, high viral loads, or interleukin-28B unfavorable genotypes, or those without a rapid virological response (RVR: undetectable HCV RNA at week 4), or those with complete early virological response (cEVR: undetectable HCV RNA at week 12). Treatment-naïve G2 patients with high viral loads or without RVR or cEVR incurred significantly higher costs per SVR than their counterparts. The cost/SVR was extremely high among patients without RVR and in patients without cEVR. CONCLUSION: We investigated the real-world cost effectiveness data for different subgroups of treatment-naïve HCV patients with PegIFN/RBV therapies, which could provide useful, informative evidence for making decisions regarding future therapeutic strategies comprising costly direct-acting antivirals.

[Costs of a guideline-based treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C in the era of interferon-free treatment]. / Kosten einer leitliniengerechten Versorgung von Hepatitis-C-Patienten im Zeitalter Interferon-freier Therapien.

The treatment of chronic hepatitis C has considerably changed with the introduction of recent direct acting antivirals. These antivirals have sustained virologic response (SVR) rates above 90 % as well as reduced toxicity and treatment duration. Therefore, current German guidelines recommend these interferon-free regimens as first-choice treatment. Nevertheless, recent developments were accompanied by a significant increase in treatment costs, which led to extensive discussions on reasonable pharmaceutical prices. The aim of the current study was to analyze the average treatment costs and costs per patient cured for guideline treatment recommendations. Analyses were stratified according to genotype, treatment status (naive/experienced), and presence/absence of cirrhosis. Costs were separated in (1.) basic diagnostic procedures, (2.) monitoring, and (3.) pharmaceuticals. The calculation is based on a remuneration scheme in the statutory health insurance system. In treatment-naïve non-cirrhotic patients, the average cost is 41 766 €/SVR for the treatment with SOF/LDV calculated (PTV/r/OMV+DSV: 53 129 €/SVR). In treatment-naive cirrhotic patients, costs were 60 323 €/SVR (SOF/LDV+RBV) and 80 604 €/SVR (PTV/r/OMV+DSV+RBV). Treatment-experienced genotype 1 patients had average costs of 60 366 €/SVR for SOF/LDV treatment as well as 53 134 €/SVR for PTV/r/OMV+DSV±RBV treatment (cirrhotic patients: 62 208 €/SVR for SOF/LDV+RBV; 80 824 €/SVR for PTV/r/OMV+DSV+RBV). The average treatment costs per SVR in treatment-naive genotype 1 patients are comparable to previous standard of care treatments and lower in treatment-experienced patients. In other genotypes, treatment costs and costs per cure are significantly higher compared to previous standard of care. However, long-term modelling studies show that new regimens are cost-effective.

Adoption of new agents and changes in treatment patterns for hepatitis C: 2010-2014.

OBJECTIVES: A number of new hepatitis C virus (HCV) medications have become available in the United States, but little is known about how these treatments have been adopted into practice and their financial burden on patients. The aim of this study was to examine whether the introduction of new HCV medications was associated with changes in treatment rates and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from Optum Labs Data Warehouse. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis using a large, US commercial insurance database to identify 56,116 adults with chronic HCV between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014. Logistic regression was performed to calculate patients' predicted probability of being treated before and after the new medications became available. RESULTS: A total of 5436 (9.7%) of patients with HCV received treatment during an average of 1.8 years of follow-up. In the last quarter of 2014, 0.1% of patients with HCV received interferon/ribavirin as the primary treatment; no one received boceprevir or telaprevir, 1.1% received sofosbuvir combined with simeprevir, 1.4% received sofosbuvir or simeprevir alone, and 2.0% received ledipasvir/sofosbuvir. The introduction of new medications was significantly associated with an increased treatment rate, from 5.4% to 6.8% (P < .001). The increase was high among elderly patients and patients with liver transplant, liver cancer, and liver disease or cirrhosis. The median OOP costs of patients receiving new regimens were relatively low ($112-$340), but great variations existed. CONCLUSIONS: At the end of 2014, patients were almost exclusively using new therapies, which was associated with increased treatment rate, especially among patients who may need urgent treatment but are intolerant or ineligible for interferon-based regimens.

Drug Pricing Evolution in Hepatitis C.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the association between the stepwise increase in the sustained viral response (SVR) and Swiss and United States (US) market prices of drug regimens for treatment-naive, genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in the last 25 years. We identified the following five steps in the development of HCV treatment regimens: 1) interferon (IFN)-α monotherapy in the early '90s, 2) IFN-α in combination with ribavirin (RBV), 3) pegylated (peg) IFN-α in combination with RBV, 4) the first direct acting antivirals (DAAs) (telaprevir and boceprevir) in combination with pegIFN-α and RBV, and 5) newer DAA-based regimens, such as sofosbuvir (which is or is not combined with ledipasvir) and fixed-dose combination of ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir and ombitasvir in combination with dasabuvir. DESIGN: We performed a linear regression and mean cost analysis to test for an association between SVRs and HCV regimen prices. We conducted a sensitivity analysis using US prices at the time of US drug licensing. We selected randomized clinical trials of drugs approved for use in Switzerland from 1997 to July 2015 including treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 1 infection. RESULTS: We identified a statistically significant positive relationship between the proportion of patients achieving SVRs and the costs of HCV regimens in Switzerland (with a bivariate ordinary least square regression yielding an R2 measure of 0.96) and the US (R2 = 0.95). The incremental cost per additional percentage of SVR was 597.14 USD in Switzerland and 1,063.81 USD in the US. CONCLUSION: The pricing of drugs for HCV regimens follows a value-based model, which has a stable ratio of costs per achieved SVR over 25 years. Health care systems are struggling with the high resource use of these new agents despite their obvious long-term advantages for the overall health of the population. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry, health care payers and other stakeholders are challenged with finding new drug pricing schemes to treat the entire population infected with HCV.

Cost-Effectiveness of Peg-Interferon, Interferon and Oral Nucleoside Analogues in the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B and D Infections in China.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The cost-effectiveness of highly effective, but costly, peg-interferon (peg-IFN) treatment for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infections in China is unknown. Endemic hepatitis D virus (HDV) may also modify the effectiveness of any HBV treatment option. The objective of this study is to determine the best antiviral treatment from a societal perspective in the Chinese population, which contains a mix of HBV and HDV infections. METHODS: A Markov model is developed to simulate the clinical course of CHB and chronic hepatitis D (CHD) individuals. For a hypothetical Chinese cohort of 10,000 individuals aged 30-60 years, cost-utility analysis is performed for therapies with: lamivudine, adefovir, telbivudine, entecavir, IFN and Peg-IFN. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) are discounted at 3 % annually. A one-way sensitivity analysis is also conducted. RESULTS: Lamivudine, adefovir, telbivudine, and entecavir are all cost-effective treatments compared to palliative care at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$418, -$197, -$443 and -$317 per QALY, respectively (2015 US dollars). Peg-IFN yields a maximum 156,000 QALYs with an ICER of $1149 per QALY while IFN results in the highest cumulative mortality of 48 % along with the lowest QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirm that only Peg-IFN and ETV are the only two cost-effective options at the current willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $12,000 in China. However, entecavir has a higher probability of being cost-effective than Peg-IFN at current WTP for all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Peg-IFN generates maximum QALYs compared to lamivudine, adefovir, telbivudine and interferon, and presents itself as a cost-effective option at current WTP. Alternatively entecavir can be used in China, generating 10 % lower QALYs than Peg-IFN but costing less than palliative care.

Early Treatment in HCV: Is it a Cost-Utility Option from the Italian Perspective?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In Italy, the Italian Pharmaceutical Agency (AIFA) criteria used F3-F4 fibrosis stages as the threshold to prioritise the treatment with interferon (IFN)-free regimens, while in genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C (G1 CHC) patients with fibrosis of liver stage 2, an approach with pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN)-based triple therapy with simeprevir was suggested. The key clinical question is whether, in an era of financial constraints, the application of a universal IFN-free strategy in naïve G1 CHC patients is feasible within a short time horizon. The aim of this study is to perform an economic analysis to estimate the cost-utility of the early innovative therapy in Italy for managing hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients. METHODS: The incremental cost-utility analysis was carried out to quantify the benefits of the early treatment approach in HCV subjects. A Markov simulation model including direct and indirect costs and health outcomes was developed from an Italian National Healthcare Service and societal perspective. A total of 5000 Monte Carlo simulations were performed on two distinct scenarios: standard of care (SoC) which includes 14,000 genotype 1 patients in Italy treated with innovative interferon-free regimens in the fibrosis of liver stages 3 and 4 (F3-F4) versus early-treatment scenario (ETS) where 2000 patients were additionally treated with simeprevir plus PEG-IFN and ribavirin in the fibrosis stage 2 (F2) (based on Italian Medicines Agency AIFA reimbursement criteria). A systematic literature review was carried out to identify epidemiological and economic data, which were subsequently used to inform the model. Furthermore, a one-way probabilistic sensitivity was performed to measure the relationship between the main parameters of the model and the cost-utility results. RESULTS: The model shows that, in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, ETS appeared to be the most cost-utility option compared with both perspective societal (ICER = EUR11,396) and NHS (ICER = EUR14,733) over a time period of 10 years. The cost-utility of ETS is more sustainable as it extends the time period analysis [ICER = EUR 6778 per QALY to 20 years and EUR4474 per QALY to 30 years]. From the societal perspective, the ETS represents the dominant option at a time horizon of 30 years. If we consider the sub-group population of treated patients [16,000 patients of which 2000 not treated in the SoC, the ETS scenario was dominant after only 5 years and the cost-utility at 2 years of simulation. The one-way sensitivity analysis on the main variables confirmed the robustness of the model for the early-treatment approach. CONCLUSION: Our model represents a tool for policy makers and health-care professionals, and provided information on the cost-utility of the early-treatment approach in HCV-infected patients in Italy. Starting innovative treatment regimens earlier keeps HCV-infected patients in better health and reduces the incidence of HCV-related events; generating a gain both in terms of health of the patients and correct resource allocation.

Real-world medical costs of antiviral therapy among patients with chronic HCV infection and advanced hepatic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Very potent direct acting antivirals for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection were recently introduced into daily clinical practice. Currently, treatment uptake is hampered by their high costs, eliciting prioritization of treatment. We aimed to evaluate the direct medical costs during interferon (IFN)-based antiviral treatment and the costs per sustained virological response (SVR) among patients with advanced hepatic fibrosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all consecutive patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection and biopsy-proven bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis (Ishak 4-6) treated with IFN-based regimens in five hepatology units of tertiary care centers in Europe and Canada. Direct medical costs, expressed in 2013 Euros, during therapy were assessed. The components of care were quantified by three distinct categories: treatment, safety/ monitoring, and complications. Cost per SVR was calculated by dividing the mean cost by the SVR rate. RESULTS: In total, 672 interferon-based treatments administered to 455 patients were included. Total medical costs per patient were averaged to €14 559 (95% confidence interval [CI], €13 323-€15 836). The mean cost per SVR was €38 514 (95% CI, €35 244-€41 892). The costs per SVR were €26 105 (95% CI, €23 068-€29 296) for patients with a normal platelet count and €50 907 (95% CI, €44 151-€59 612) for patients with thrombocytopenia, with the costs per SVR of €74 961 (95% CI, €55 463-€103 541) among those patients with a platelet count below 100 * 109 /L. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the lower SVR rates, the cost per SVR of IFN-based treatment increased when patients with more advanced liver disease were treated. Additional costs of IFN-free therapy could be limited among these patients.

[Cost-effectiveness and safety of telaprevir and boceprevir for chronic hepatitis C in real-world clinical practice]. / Coste-efectividad y seguridad de telaprevir y boceprevir para el tratamiento de la hepatitis C crónica en la práctica clínica.

INTRODUCTION: Triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir has proven to be effective in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C with response rates of up to 88%. However, the treatment may be associated with important adverse effects and a high economic impact. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and safety of triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. METHODS: Retrospective observational study. We included all patients who had started treatment with protease inhibitors before July 31(st), 2013. We evaluated sustained virological response, the cost per patient achieving sustained virological response, and the cost of the supportive treatment for adverse events associated with triple therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were included; 35 had been treated with telaprevir (59.3%) and 24 with boceprevir (40.7%). Sustained virological response was achieved by 38 (64.4%) patients: 24 (68.6%) patients in the telaprevir treatment arm and 14 (58.3%) patients in the boceprevir treatment arm. The cost per patient with sustained virological response was 43,555 € (95% CI 35,389-51,722 €). There were no statistically significant differences between the overall costs of therapy with telaprevir, 43,494 € (95% CI 34,795 €-55,092 €) versus boceprevir, 42,005 € (95% CI 32,122-64,243€). The mean cost of supportive care per patient was 1,500 €, while the maximum cost was 11,374 €. Due to adverse events, 8 (13.6%) patients required hospital admission, 22 (37.3%) patients attended the accident and emergency department, and 26 (44.1%) patients needed additional medical consultations. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir resulted in high cost per patient with sustained virological response. Due to adverse events, a high number of patients required supportive care, whose costs should be added to those of triple therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based treatments for chronic hepatitis C in the US.

BACKGROUND: The standard care of treatment of interferon plus ribavirin (plus protease inhibitor for genotype 1) are effective in 50 % to 70 % of patients with CHC. Several new treatments including Harvoni, Olysio + Sovaldi, Viekira Pak, Sofosbuvir-based regimens characterized with potent inhibitors have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) providing more options for CHC patients. Trials have shown that the new treatments increased the rate to 80% to 95%, though with a substantial increase in cost. In particular, current market pricing of a 12-week course of sofosbuvir is approximately US$84,000. We determine the cost-effectiveness of new treatments in comparison with the standard care of treatments. METHODS: A Markov simulation model of CHC disease progression is used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies based on genotype. The model calculates the expected lifetime medical costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of hypothetical cohorts of identical patients receiving certain treatments. For genotype 1, we compare: (1) peginterferon + ribavirin + telaprevir for 12 weeks, followed by 12 or 24 weeks treatment of peginterferon + ribavirin dependent on HCV RNA level at week 12; (2) Harvoni treatment, 12 weeks; (3) Olysio + Sovaldi, 12 weeks for patients without cirrhosis, 24 weeks for patients with cirrhosis; (4) Viekira Pak + ribavirin, 12 weeks for patients without cirrhosis, 24 weeks for patients with cirrhosis; (5) sofosbuvir + peginterferon + ribavirin, 12 weeks for patients with or without cirrhosis. For genotypes 2 and 3, treatment strategies include: (1) peginterferon + ribavirin, 24 weeks for treatment-naïve patients; (2) sofosbuvir + ribavirin, 12 weeks for patients with genotype 2, 24 weeks for genotype 3; (3) peginterferon + ribavirin as initial treatment, 24 weeks for patients with genotype 2/3, follow-up treatment with sofosbuvir + ribavirin for 12/16 weeks are performed on non-responders and relapsers. RESULTS: Viekira Pak is cost-effective for genotype 1 patients without cirrhosis, whereas Harvoni is cost-effective for genotype 1 patients with cirrhosis. Sofosbuvir-based treatments for genotype 1 in general are not cost-effective due to its substantial high costs. Two-phase treatments with 12-week and 16-week follow-ups are cost-effective for genotype 3 patients and for genotype 2 patients with cirrhosis. The results were shown to be robust over a broad range of parameter values through sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For genotype 1, sofosbuvir-based treatments are not cost-effective compared to Viekira Pak and Harvoni, although a 30% reduction in sofosbuvir price would change this result. Sofosbuvir + ribavirin are cost-effective as second-phase treatments following peginterferon + ribavirin initial treatment for genotypes 2 and 3. However, there is limited data on sofosbuvir-involved treatment, and the results obtained in this study must be interpreted within the model assumptions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of simeprevir in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin for treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients in Japan.

AIM: Simeprevir (SMV), a protease inhibitor, recently became available for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C (HCV) genotype 1 patients in Japan. The introduction of triple therapy using SMV in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) significantly improves the cure rate. The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SMV with PR (SMV/PR) compared to telaprevir with PR (TVR/PR), PR alone, or no treatment in treatment-naïve patients in Japan. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to reflect the natural disease progression of HCV and to estimate the average life years and lifetime healthcare costs per patient. Sustained virologic response rates were obtained from a network meta-analysis including randomized clinical trials conducted in Japan. Patient baseline characteristics, HCV progression rates, mortality, medical resource utilization, and unit costs were obtained from Japanese sources. Outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios as well as incremental cost and life years. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty around model outcomes. RESULTS: SMV/PR was estimated to be a cost-effective treatment option as more life years were gained by 0.235 and 0.873 years at a reduced cost by ¥263,037 and ¥776,900 compared to TVR/PR and PR alone, respectively. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses, in particular in the comparison of SMV/PR with PR alone. The multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of SMV/PR being cost-effective was relatively constant at ∼87% at any willingness to pay. CONCLUSIONS: SMV/PR is estimated to be the most cost-effective treatment strategy for treatment-naïve HCV genotype 1 patients in Japan.

Cost-effectiveness model for hepatitis C screening and treatment: Implications for Egypt and other countries with high prevalence.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a major cause of cirrhosis and liver cancer, and many developing countries report intermediate-to-high prevalence. However, the economic impact of screening and treatment for HCV in high prevalence countries has not been well studied. Thus, we examined the cost-effectiveness of screening and treatment for HCV infection for asymptomatic, average-risk adults using a Markov decision analytic model. In our model, we collected age-specific prevalence, disease progression rates for Egyptians and local cost estimates in Egypt, which has the highest prevalence of HCV infection (~15%) in the world. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and conducted sensitivity analyses to determine how cost-effective HCV screening and treatment might be in other developing countries with high and intermediate prevalence. In Egypt, implementing a screening programme using triple-therapy treatment (sofosbuvir with pegylated interferon and ribavirin) was dominant compared with no screening because it would have lower total costs and improve health outcomes. HCV screening and treatment would also be cost-effective in global settings with intermediate costs of drug treatment (~$8000) and a higher sustained viral response rate (70-80%).

THE NEED FOR HBV GENOTYPING: A COST-EFFICIENT APPROACH.

The outcome of chronic HBV infection is variable; approximately one half of individuals transition to an inactive carrier state, 30% progress to cirrhosis, and the remainder to chronic hepatitis. Ten different HBV genotypes and many subtypes have been identified with distinct geographical distributions. Over the years, a lot of studies presented the efficiency of different genotyping methods; for this reason we aimed to present a cost efficient genotyping diagnosis algorithm of CHB infected patients, especially useful to identify those at risk of disease progression and determine optimal anti-viral therapy as useful instrument for physicians.

Cost-effectiveness of telaprevir in patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Protease inhibitors such as telaprevir (Incivo) are reimbursed in Australia for the treatment of patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PR). OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of telaprevir plus PR compared with PR alone in 1) previously untreated patients and 2) patients who had received treatment with PR earlier. METHODS: Sustained virological response rates and average treatment durations of telaprevir and PR (given with or without telaprevir) were taken from the telaprevir ADVANCE and REALIZE clinical trials but were modified to take account of differences in prescribing rules between the trials and Australian clinical practice. The probability of transitioning between Markov disease states was based on data from the Australian Kirby Institute where possible and supplemented using data from the published literature. Utility values obtained from the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire data collected in the ADVANCE and REALIZE trials were used to represent the utility during HCV treatment. Utility values for Markov health states were taken from the published literature. Unit costs (2014 AU $) were taken from Australian sources. RESULTS: In treatment-naive patients, the discounted cost per life-years gained was AU $37,706 and the discounted cost per quality-adjusted life-year was AU $19,283. In treatment-experienced patients, the discounted cost per life-year gained was AU $23,855 and the discounted cost per quality-adjusted life-year was AU $14,948. CONCLUSION: Telaprevir plus PR in the Australian setting is cost-effective when compared with PR alone in patients infected with genotype 1 HCV.

Impact of completing chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treatment on post-therapy healthcare cost.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with significant economic burden. This study evaluated the healthcare cost alleviation associated with treatment of CHC. METHODS: Health insurance claims from 60 self-insured US companies were analyzed (01/2001-03/2012). Adult patients with ≥1 CHC diagnosis (ICD-9-CM: 070.44, 070.54), initiating interferon, and with ≥2 dispensings and with ≥48 weeks of follow-up were selected. Patients diagnosed with HIV or who completed only 24 weeks of interferon therapy (a surrogate for CHC genotypes 2 and 3) were excluded from the study. Interferon users were categorized into complete and discontinued therapy cohorts. During the post-48-week treatment period, cohorts were compared for healthcare resource utilization using rate ratios (RRs), as well as healthcare costs using per-patient per-year (PPPY) cost differences. RESULTS: A total of 1017 patients who completed and 953 patients who discontinued interferon therapy were identified. Relative to the discontinued therapy cohort, the completed therapy cohort had significantly fewer hospitalizations (RR [95% CI] = 0.74 [0.68, 0.81], p < 0.001), outpatient visits (RR [95% CI] = 0.92 [0.91, 0.93], p < 0.001), and ER visits (RR [95% CI] = 0.93 [0.87, 1.00], p = 0.039), which translated into significantly lower total healthcare costs PPPY (cost difference [95% CI] = $4540 [1570, 7680], p = 0.004) and hospitalization costs (cost difference [95% CI] = $3039 [1140, 5248], p = 0.002). Non-CHC-related costs accounted for 55% and CHC-related costs for 45% of the all-cause cost difference between cohorts. LIMITATIONS: Claims data may have contained inaccuracies, and genotypes of patients with CHC could not be confirmed. The study consisted of privately insured individuals and may not be generalizable to the entire CHC population. CONCLUSION: Compared to discontinued therapy patients, CHC patients who completed interferon therapy and presumably had a higher rate of achieving SVR were found to have lower levels of healthcare resource utilization and costs post-therapy. The reduction was primarily in costs associated with non-HCV-related comorbidities.