Search

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir (SOF) + ribavirin (RBV), SOF + daclatasvir (DCV), and SOF + ledipasvir (LDV) + RBV compared with SOF + pegylated interferon alfa (pegIFN) + RBV in the treatment of patients infected with hepatitis C virus in Egypt., Methods: Two Markov models were developed on the basis of the Egyptian clinical data and practice and were derived from published sources. The clinical parameters were derived from two sources: the Egypt multicenter national treatment program and previously published randomized clinical trials. The utility of the health states was derived using the available published data. Direct medical costs were obtained from the National Liver Institute database., Results: In noncirrhotic patients, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US $2330 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the SOF + LDV + RBV, -US $9043/QALY for the SOF + DCV, and -US $1332/QALY for the SOF + RBV regimens were yielded. In cirrhotic patients, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of -US $4170/QALY gained for the SOF + LDV + RBV, -US $9515/QALY for the SOF + DCV, and -US $2289/QALY for the SOF + RBV regimens were yielded. The SOF + DCV regimen was the most cost-saving option for cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients. Deterministic sensitivity analyses remain robust., Conclusions: The present study concludes that the SOF + DCV regimen among other currently available regimens is the most cost-saving option that yields the most favorable future health economic outcomes compared with the SOF + pegIFN + RBV regimen across a broad spectrum of patients, including those with cirrhosis., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) genotype 1 (GT1) in the absence or mild fibrosis (F0-F1) versus advanced fibrosis (F2-F4), from the perspective of the Spanish Health System. A Markov model was developed to simulate disease progression, estimating costs and outcomes [life years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY)] derived from starting with LDV/SOF in patients with F0-F1 compared with F2-F4. Therapy duration was 8 weeks in noncirrhotic patients with viral load <6 million IU/mL and 12 weeks in the remaining patients. Sustained virologic response rates were obtained from real-world cohort studies. Transition probabilities, utilities and direct costs were obtained from the literature. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed. LDV/SOF in F0-F1 patients was a dominant strategy, being more effective (19.85 LYG and 19.80 QALY) than beginning treatment in F2-F4 patients (18.63 LYG and 16.25 QALY), generating savings of €9228 per patient (€3661 due to disease management and monitoring). In a cohort of 1000 patients, LDV/SOF in F0-F1 patients decreased the number of cases of decompensated cirrhosis (93%), hepatocellular carcinoma (97%) and liver-related deaths (95%) and prevented 6 liver transplants compared to initiating LDV/SOF in F2-F4 patients. In CHC treatment-naïve GT1 patients, starting treatment with LDV/SOF in patients with F0-F1 compared to those with F2-F4 increases effectiveness by 1.22 LYG and 3.55 QALY gained and reduces disease burden and it is associated with cost savings., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The advent of highly efficacious, well-tolerated, all-oral direct-acting antiviral regimens has revolutionized the standard of care for patients chronically infected with hepatitis C virus. As efficacy and safety rates converge, prescribers and payers need to consider value for money., Objectives: To evaluate the health economic value of daclatasvir + asunaprevir versus sofosbuvir/ledipasvir via a cost-effectiveness analysis, and determine the optimal treatment considering both costs and health outcomes in Japan., Methods: A previously published Markov model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir + asunaprevir compared with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir on the basis of a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of pivotal trials and modeling inputs specific to the Japanese setting. A de novo budget impact model was developed and used to predict the cost implications of differing treatment sequences., Results: Cost-effectiveness results demonstrated minimal difference in terms of benefit (0.037 fewer QALYs and 0.014 fewer life-years with daclatasvir + asunaprevir); nevertheless, a significant difference in cost was predicted (estimated ¥2,299,700 [US $21,695] reduction with daclatasvir + asunaprevir). The budget impact analysis estimated that treatment with daclatasvir + asunaprevir is expected to be less expensive than treatment with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (as the proportion of patients initially treated with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir increased from 0% to 100%, total costs increased from ¥206 to ¥403 billion [US $1.94 billion to US $3.80 billion])., Conclusions: On the basis of results from an established cost-effectiveness model and a conventional budget impact analysis, treatment with daclatasvir + asunaprevir is expected to be cost-saving compared with treatment with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir in Japan with similar health outcomes, regardless of treatment sequence., (Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV)(+) donors represent an effective strategy to increase liver donor availability to HCV-infected recipients. However, many HCV(+) transplant candidates are now receiving treatment with direct-acting anti-viral (DAA) agents that lower the risk of posttransplant HCV recurrence but could make the patient ineligible for HCV(+) livers., Methods: We compared pretransplant DAA treatment versus deferred DAA treatment using a cost-effectiveness decision analysis model to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per quality-adjusted life year gained) from the societal perspective across a range of HCV(+) liver availability rates. For practical considerations, the population modeled was restricted to well-compensated HCV(+) cirrhotics listed for liver transplantation with hepatocellular carcinoma MELD exception points., Results: Under base case conditions, the deferred DAA treatment strategy was found to be the "dominant" strategy. That is, it provided superior health outcomes at cost savings compared to the pretransplant DAA treatment strategy. The pretransplant DAA treatment strategy trended towards cost-effectiveness as HCV(+) donor liver availability declined. However, only in 1 scenario that was highly optimized for favorable outcomes in the pretransplant DAA treatment arm (low availability of HCV(+) organs, low cost of DAA treatment, high cost of HCV recurrence) was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with HCV DAA treatment before transplant less than US $150 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained., Conclusions: Deferring HCV treatment until after liver transplant and maintaining access to the expanded pool of HCV(+) donors appears to be the most cost-effective strategy for well-compensated HCV-infected cirrhotics listed for liver transplantation with hepatocellular carcinoma, even in geographic areas of relatively low HCV(+) donor availability.

Background: Ledipasvir (LDV)/sofosbuvir (SOF) has demonstrated high efficacy, safety, and tolerability in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients. There is limited data, however, regarding the optimal timing of therapy in the context of possible liver transplantation (LT)., Methods: We compared the cost-effectiveness of 12 weeks of HCV therapy before or after LT or nontreatment using a decision analytical microsimulation state-transition model for a simulated cohort of 10 000 patients with HCV Genotype 1 or 4 with Child B or C cirrhosis. All model parameters regarding the efficacy of therapy, adverse events and the effect of therapy on changes in model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were derived from the SOLAR-1 and 2 trials. The simulations were repeated with 10 000 samples from the parameter distributions. The primary outcome was cost (2014 US dollars) per quality adjusted life year., Results: Treatment before LT yielded more quality-adjusted life year for less money than treatment after LT or nontreatment. Treatment before LT was cost-effective in 100% of samples at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100 000 in the base-case and when the analysis was restricted to Child B alone, Child C, or MELD > 15. Treatment before transplant was not cost-effective when MELD was 6-10. In sensitivity analyses, the MELD after which treatment before transplant was cost-effective was 13 and the maximum cost of LDV/SOF therapy at which treatment before LT is cost-effective is US $177 381., Conclusions: From a societal perspective, HCV therapy using LDV/SOF with ribavirin before LT is the most cost-effective strategy for patients with decompensated cirrhosis and MELD score greater than 13.

Background: The recently launched nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir represents a significant turn in the treatment paradigm of chronic hepatitis C. While effective, sofosbuvir is also associated with a considerable cost., Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of sofosbuvir-containing regimens in treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 5 (HCV-G5) mono-infection in South Africa (SA)., Design: We constructed a lifetime horizon decision-analytic Markov model of the natural history of HCV infection to evaluate the cost effectiveness of sofosbuvir-ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) monotherapy against sofosbuvir triple therapy (SOF-TT) (sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon and ribavirin [peg-INF/RBV]) and the current standard of care (SOC) (peg-INF/RBV) for patients with chronic HCV-G5 in the South African context. The model was populated with data from published literature, expert opinion and South African private sector cost data. The price modelled for sofosbuvir was the predicted South African private sector price of 82,129.32 South African rand (R) (US$7000) for 12 weeks. The analysis was conducted from a third-party payer perspective., Outcome Measures: The outcome measures were discounted and undiscounted costs (in 2015 South African rand and US dollars) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)., Results: Outcomes from the cost-effectiveness model show that SOF/LDV yields the most favourable future health economic outcomes compared with SOF-TT and the current SOC in SA. Findings relating to the lifetime incremental cost per QALY gained for patients infected with HCV-G5 indicate that SOF/LDV dominated both SOF-TT and SOC, i.e. SOF/LDV is less costly and more effective., Conclusion: Outcomes from this analysis suggest that at a price of R123,190 ($US10,500) for 12 weeks of SOF/LDV might be cost effective for South African patients infected with HCV-G5.

Background: Chronic 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., Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based treatments for HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection in the United States., Design: Monte Carlo simulation, including deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Data Sources: Randomized trials, observational cohorts, and national health care spending surveys., Target Population: 8 patient types defined by HCV genotype (2 vs. 3), treatment history (naive vs. experienced), and cirrhosis status (noncirrhotic vs. cirrhotic)., Time Horizon: Lifetime., Perspective: Payer., Intervention: Sofosbuvir-based therapies, pegylated interferon-ribavirin, and no therapy., Outcome Measures: Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)., Results of Base-Case Analysis: The 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 Analysis: The 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., Limitation: The analysis did not consider possible benefits of preventing HCV transmission., Conclusion: Sofosbuvir 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 Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.