Search

Background: Abemaciclib was newly approved for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) high-risk early breast cancer (EBC). Clinical guidelines recommended abemaciclib as the first-line treatment for HR+/ HER2- EBC (early use) or HR+/ HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (delayed use)., Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of early vs delayed use of abemaciclib for treatment of HR+/HER2- high-risk EBC. Early use was defined as combined abemaciclib and endocrine therapy as first-line therapy for EBC, followed by treatment with fulvestrant for MBC. Delayed use was defined as endocrine therapy for EBC, followed by combined abemaciclib and fulvestrant therapy for MBC., Methods: A 5-state model was developed to estimate lifetime costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of hypothetical patients with HR+/ HER2- EBC from a third-party US payer's perspective. Key clinical and safety data were derived from the monarchE and MONARCH 2 clinical trials. Costs, utilities, and disutility values of adverse events were obtained from the literature. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of early vs delayed abemaciclib use and compared it with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per LY or QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed to test the robustness of the base-case model., Results: Base-case analysis showed early use yielded 21.08 LYs and 17.93 QALYs for $586,213 and delayed use yielded 11.14 LYs and 9.38 QALYs for $157,576. The ICER of early vs delayed use was $43,136/LY and $50,104/QALY, which was cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $100,000. The PSA result indicated that a 94.6% likelihood of early use (vs delayed use) was cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $100,000 per QALY., Conclusions: This study suggests that giving abemaciclib in the early stage rather than waiting until patients develop metastatic disease (current standard of care in MBC) is a cost-effective strategy.

Purpose: Incorporating adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib along with endocrine therapy has been shown to improve invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC). This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, along with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors from an Indian perspective., Methods: A Markov chain model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib and ribociclib with letrozole compared with letrozole alone for HR+/HER2- EBC from a payer perspective in India. Key measures included lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), life-years (LY), and total costs. This study explores two scenarios for effectiveness: a best-case (BC) scenario, where the benefit of CDK4/6 inhibitors in improving iDFS lasts a lifetime, and a worst-case (WC) scenario, where benefits disappear after 5 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were used to account for simulation uncertainty., Results: In the BC scenario, abemaciclib added 2.17 QALY and 4.96 LY, incurring ₹2,317,957.7 ($27,756.65 in US dollars [USD]) in additional costs. However, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for abemaciclib exceeded India's willingness-to-pay threshold in the BC and WC scenarios. In the BC scenario, ribociclib added 0.98 QALY and 2.58 LY with added costs of ₹1,711,504.32 ($20,494.6 USD). The ICER for ribociclib also surpassed India's threshold in both scenarios. PSA showed that neither drug was cost-effective at the current market prices in either BC/WC scenario. The cost of abemaciclib and ribociclib needs to be reduced by at least 78.61% and 87.19%, respectively, to be cost-effective in the BC scenario., Conclusion: The combination of adjuvant abemaciclib or ribociclib with letrozole is not cost-effective for HR+/HER2- EBC in India in either the BC or WC scenario.

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with binimetinib (EncoBini) as compared to other targeted double combination therapies, namely dabrafenib with trametinib (DabraTrame) and vemurafenib with cobimetinib (VemuCobi), for the treatment of BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma (MM) from the French payer perspective., Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed considering a lifetime horizon. The model structure simulated the clinical pathway of patients with BRAF V600-mutant MM. Clinical effectiveness and safety inputs were sourced from the COLUMBUS trial, a network meta-analysis and published literature. Costs, resource use, and the quality of life inputs were obtained from the literature and appropriate French sources., Results: Over a lifetime horizon, EncoBini was associated, on average, with reduced costs and increased quality adjusted life years (QALYs), dominating both targeted double combination therapies. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of €90,000 per QALY, the probability of EncoBini being cost-effective against either comparator remained above 80%. The most influential model parameters were the hazard ratios for the overall survival of EncoBini vs DabraTrame and VemuCobi, the pre- and post-progression utility values, as well as treatment dosages and the relative dose intensity of all interventions., Conclusion: EncoBini is associated with reduced costs and increased QALYs, dominating other targeted double combination therapies (DabraTrame, VemuCobi) for patients with BRAF V600-mutant MM in France. EncoBini is a highly cost-effective intervention in MM., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of maribavir versus investigator-assigned therapy (IAT; valganciclovir/ganciclovir, foscarnet, or cidofovir) for post-transplant refractory cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with or without resistance. A two-stage Markov model was designed using data from the SOLSTICE trial (NCT02931539), real-world multinational observational studies, and published literature. Stage 1 (0-78 weeks) comprised clinically significant CMV (csCMV), non-clinically significant CMV (n-csCMV), and dead states; stage 2 (78 weeks-lifetime) comprised alive and dead states. Total costs (2022 USD) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for the maribavir and IAT cohorts. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated to determine cost-effectiveness against a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY. Compared with IAT, maribavir had lower costs ($139 751 vs $147 949) and greater QALYs (6.04 vs 5.83), making it cost-saving and more cost-effective. Maribavir had higher acquisition costs compared with IAT ($80 531 vs $65 285), but lower costs associated with administration/monitoring ($16 493 vs $27 563), adverse events (AEs) ($11 055 vs $16 114), hospitalization ($27 157 vs $33 905), and graft loss ($4516 vs $5081), thus making treatment with maribavir cost-saving. Maribavir-treated patients spent more time without CMV compared with IAT-treated patients (0.85 years vs 0.68 years), leading to lower retreatment costs for maribavir (cost savings: -$42 970.80). Compared with IAT, maribavir was more cost-effective for transplant recipients with refractory CMV, owing to better clinical efficacy and avoidance of high costs associated with administration, monitoring, AEs, and hospitalizations. These results can inform healthcare decision-makers on the most effective use of their resources for post-transplant refractory CMV treatment., (© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Medical Virology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Novel oral regimes have been approved for treating hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in adolescents due to their superior effectiveness and safety. However, its economic outcome is still unclear in this population. The current analysis investigates the cost-effectiveness of novel oral regimens compared with that of pegylated interferon α with ribavirin (PR) therapies in adolescents in the context of the United States and China., Methods: A Markov model was developed to measure the economic and health outcomes of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LS) for genotypes 1 and 4, sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SR) for genotype 2, and ledipasvir/sofosbuvir/ribavirin (LSR) for genotype 3 HCV infection compared with the outcomes of PR treatment. Clinical costs and utility inputs were gathered from published sources. Lifetime discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured. The uncertainty was facilitated by 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Results: In the United States, the ICERs of LS strategy were $14,699 and $14,946/QALY for genotypes 1 and 4 HCV infection, respectively; the ICER of SR strategy for genotype 2 was $42,472/QALY; and the ICER of LSR for genotype 3 was $49,409/QALY in comparison with the PR strategy. In Chinese adolescents, LS for genotypes 1 and 4, SR for genotype 2, and LSR for genotype 3 were the dominant alternatives to the PR strategy. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: Novel oral regimes for adolescents with HCV infection are likely to be cost-effective in the context of the United States and China.

Introduction: The objective of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir versus other direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in Japan., Methods: We developed a health state transition model to capture the natural history of HCV. A cost-effectiveness analysis of DAAs from the perspective of a public healthcare payer in Japan with a lifetime horizon over annual cycles was performed. Treatment attributes, baseline demographics, transition probabilities, health-state utilities, and costs data were extracted from publications. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 2% per annum. In the base case we focused on genotype 1 (GT1) treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis. The scenario analysis examined a pan-genotype treatment in GT1-3 (i.e., portfolio), treatment-naïve, and treatment-experienced patients. The portfolio cost-effectiveness of DAAs was derived by calculating a weighted average of patient segments defined by treatment history, cirrhosis status, and genotype., Results: The base case results indicated that glecaprevir/pibrentasvir was dominant (i.e., generating higher quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] and lower lifetime costs) compared to all other DAAs. The predicted lifetime risk of hepatocellular carcinoma was 3.66% for glecaprevir/pibrentasvir and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, 4.99% for elbasvir/grazoprevir, and 5.27% for daclatasvir/asunaprevir/beclabuvir. In scenario analysis the glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) portfolio dominated the sofosbuvir (SOF)-based portfolio (namely sofosbuvir/ledipasvir in GT1-2 and sofosbuvir + ribavirin in GT3). The base case probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that glecaprevir/pibrentasvir was cost-effective in 93.4% of the simulations for a willingness-to-pay/QALY range of Japanese yen (JPY) 1.6-20 million. The PSA for the portfolio scenario indicated that the GLE/PIB portfolio was cost-effective in 100% of simulations until the willingness-to-pay/QALY reached JPY 5.2 million; this proportion decreased to 69.4% at a willingness-to-pay/QALY of JPY 20 million. Results were also robust in deterministic sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: In GT1 treatment-naïve non-cirrhotic patients GLE/PIB was a cost-effective strategy compared to other DAAs. When a pan-genotypic framework was used, the GLE/PIB portfolio dominated the SOF-based portfolio.

Aims: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) found that rosuvastatin alone or with candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) (in a subgroup with hypertension) significantly lowered cardiovascular events compared with placebo in 12 705 individuals from 21 countries at intermediate risk and without cardiovascular disease. We assessed the costs implications of implementation in primary prevention in countries at different economic levels., Methods and Results: Hospitalizations, procedures, study and non-study medications were documented. We applied country-specific costs to the healthcare resources consumed for each patient. We calculated the average cost per patient in US dollars for the duration of the study (5.6 years). Sensitivity analyses were also performed with cheapest equivalent substitutes. The combination of rosuvastatin with candesartan/HCT reduced total costs and was a cost-saving strategy in United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. In contrast, the treatments were more expensive in developing countries even when cheapest equivalent substitutes were used. After adjustment for gross domestic product (GDP), the costs of cheapest equivalent substitutes in proportion to the health care costs were higher in developing countries in comparison to developed countries., Conclusion: Rosuvastatin and candesartan/HCT in primary prevention is a cost-saving approach in developed countries, but not in developing countries as both drugs and their cheapest equivalent substitutes are relatively more expensive despite adjustment by GDP. Reductions in costs of these drugs in developing countries are essential to make statins and blood pressure lowering drugs affordable and ensure their use., Clinical Trial Registration: HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Daclatasvir (DCV) combinated with Sofosbuvir (SOF) has shown good efficacy and safety profile for HCV patients. The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DCV/SOF regimen versus HCV alternative treatments for patients who failed to achieve the SVR12 after a first DAA treatment from Italian perspective (PITER cohort)., Methods: A Markov model of HCV chronically infected patients was used to develop two scenarios: 1) DCV+ SOF versus Ledipasvir (LDV)+ SOF in Genotype (Gt)1 and Gt4; 2) DCV+ SOF versus no retreatment option in Gt1, Gt3, and Gt4. The percentage of patients who failed the first line with SOF/Simeprevir/Ribavirin (RBV) or SOF/RBV and were retreated or not according to evidences from PITER cohort, were used to populate the model. HCV resources consumption and SVR rates were quantified using PITER data. Transition probabilities and utility rates were derived from the literature. The outcomes were expressed in terms of Quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of € 30,000/QALY., Results: In the base-case analysis, DCV+ SOF represents a cost-effectiveness therapy with ICERs lower than the threshold. The PSA showed robust results, ICERs remain below the threshold in 94% and 99% simulations in Scenario 1 and 2, respectively.

Introduction: approximately eighty million people around the world are living with hepatitis C, and 700,000 people die every year, due to hepatitis C related complications. In Seychelles, a total of 777 cases of hepatitis C were reported from 2002 to 2016, but up to mid of 2016, the cases were not being treated. Treatment with Harvoni, a combination of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir (SOF/LDV), is now being offered on the condition that the patient does not, or has stopped, injecting drugs. This paper is the first to establish the cost effectiveness of treating all cases of hepatitis C in Seychelles with Harvoni, as compared to no treatment., Methods: data extracted from literature was used to populate an economic model to calculate cost-effectiveness from Seychelles' government perspective. The model structure was also informed by the systematic review and an accompanying grading of economic models using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) checklist. A Markov model was developed, employing a lifetime horizon and costs and benefits were analysed from a payer's perspective and combined into incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs)., Results: the direct-acting antiviral (DAA), Harvoni, was found to be cost-saving in Seychelles hepatitis C virus (HCV) cohort, as compared to no treatment, with an ICER of € 753.65/QALY. The treatment was also cost-saving when stratified by gender, with the ICER of male and female being € 783.74/QALY and € 635.20/QALY, respectively. Moreover, the results obtained from acceptability curves showed that treating patients with Harvoni is the most cost-effective option, even for low thresholds., Conclusion: treating hepatitis C cases in Seychelles is cost-saving. It is worth developing a treatment programme to include all cases of hepatitis C, regardless of status of drug injection., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Three Cyclin Dependent Kinase 4/6 (CDK) inhibitors have been approved by the United Stated Food and Drug Administration for front line treatment of advanced hormone receptor positive breast cancer based on improvements in progression free survival against endocrine monotherapy. Two clinical trials have so far reported results on overall survival but both are negative. CDK inhibitors are usually tolerated well but they do add to inconvenience and cost - for example, grade III-IV neutropenia occur at a frequency of over 60% requiring frequent blood work at least during the initial months of treatment. These drugs cost over $ 13,500 for a 4-week cycle in the United States, and are responsible for billions of dollars annually in drug cost alone. Importantly, many women with metastatic breast cancer do well for a long time with endocrine therapy alone and CDK inhibitors do not have a predictive marker. Selective use of these agents in later lines may improve substantially the convenience and cost without compromise in overall outcome. However, with results demonstrating impressive improvements in PFS published in major medical journals coupled with patients' natural desire for "best available" options, the trend among oncologists is to prescribe these drugs as the default front-line treatment. In this commentary I caution readers against over interpretation of results from the CDK inhibitor trials, describe adverse consequences of routine front-line use, and explain why selective use in later line may yield a higher value., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background In the South African private sector context, generically similar products are grouped together and the reimbursement rate is set at the average price of the generically equivalent products. Very little evidence exists in low and middle-income countries with regards to the impact of this policy over time. Objectives To determine the impact of the introduction of generics and generic reference pricing on candesartan and rosuvastatin in the South African private health care sector in terms of medicine utilisation, medicine price and medicine expenditure. Setting South African private health sector. Method Medicine claims for candesartan and rosuvastatin was obtained from a Pharmacy Benefit Manager in South Africa. The claims covered a 48-month period from January 2012 to December 2015 and provided a pre- and post-reference price period for analysis. Medicine utilisation was measured as the number of Defined Daily Doses dispensed per 100,000 beneficiaries. Medicine price and expenditure was calculated as the average per Defined Daily Dose. Main outcome measure Medicine utilisation, price and expenditure. Results Candesartan experienced an average 7.0% year-on-year decline in utilisation and rosuvastatin a 5.0% increase. Medicine expenditure reduced by an additional 34.6% and 20.9% for candesartan and rosuvastatin respectively. The total savings was 54.8% for candesartan and 31.9% for rosuvastatin. Conclusion The introduction of generics and generic reference pricing did not have an impact on medicine utilisation, but reduced the price and expenditure of both candesartan and rosuvastatin.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments have dramatically progressed from poorly tolerated, moderately successful interferon-based therapies to highly effective all-oral interferon-free regimens. While sustained virologic responses have significantly improved with fixed-dose combinations (FDC) of these direct-acting antivirals (DAA), cost remains high and certain populations of patients remain difficult to treat. Glecaprevir (GLE, an NS3/4A protease inhibitor) and pibrentasvir (PIB, NS5A inhibitor) were recently approved as a FDC therapy for HCV, and have expanded reach, reduced cost, and in certain populations, reduced HCV treatment duration. GLE/PIB is effective across all genotypes, and has been shown to be effective in HIV-infected patients, patients with chronic kidney disease, and Child-Pugh A-compensated cirrhosis. GLE/PIB is also effective for a shortened duration of 8 weeks in treatment-naive non-cirrhotic patients.

Fixed-dose combinations (FDC) have been developed to reduce the pill burden for hypertensive patients. Data on fixed-dose or free-dose (freeDC) ramipril/amlodipine (R/A) or candesartan/amlodipine (C/A) combination treatment initiation were assessed. 71 463 patients were prescribed R/A and 10 495 C/A. For both R/A and C/A, FDC patients were younger (both P < .001) and less comorbid. Prior MI (OR: 0.61 and 0.60), prior stroke (OR: 0.68 and 0.70) and CHD (OR: 0.68 and 0.64) were negatively associated with FDC use, whereas hyperlipidemia was positively associated (OR: 1.26 and 1.19). Use of antihypertensive comedication (OR: 0.78; OR: 0.55) and treatment discontinuation within 12 months (HR: 0.65 and 0.82) were less likely in FDC patients, who also showed superior adherence (mean MPR; both P < .001). Cost of the combination was higher for FDCs (both P < .001). FDCs improve persistence and adherence, although they are more commonly prescribed in patients with less cardiovascular disease., (©2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The direct-acting virals revolutionized the treatment of hepatitis C. They also ushered turbocharged pricing. At least patients-and society-got a major health benefit in return.

Background: Hepatitis C (HCV) infection causes substantial direct health costs, but also impacts broader societal and governmental costs, such as tax revenue and social protection benefits. This study investigated the broader fiscal costs and benefits of curative interventions for chronic Hepatitis C (CHC) that allow individuals to avoid long-term HCV attributed health conditions., Methods: A prospective cohort model, assessing the long-term fiscal consequences of policy decisions, was developed for HCV infected individuals, following the generational accounting analytic framework that combines age-specific lifetime gross taxes paid and governmental transfers received (i.e. healthcare and social support costs). The analysis assessed the burden of a theoretical cohort of untreated HCV infected patients with the alternative of treating these patients with a highly efficacious curative intervention (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir [LDV/SOF]). It also compared treating patients at all fibrosis stages (Stages F0-F4) compared to late treatment (Stage F4)., Results: Based on projected lifetime work activity and taxes paid, the treated cohort paid an additional £5,900 per patient compared to the untreated cohort. Lifetime government disability costs of £97,555 and £125,359 per patient for treated cohort vs no treatment cohort were estimated, respectively. Lifetime direct healthcare costs in the treated cohort were £32,235, compared to non-treated cohort of £26,424, with an incremental healthcare costs increase of £5,901 per patient. The benefit cost ratio (BCR) of total government benefits and savings relative to government treatment costs (including LDV/SOF) ranged from 1.8-5.6. Treating patients early resulted in 77% less disability costs, 43% lower healthcare costs, and 33% higher tax revenue., Conclusion: The ability to cure Hepatitis C offers considerable fiscal benefits beyond direct medical costs and savings attributed to reduced disability costs, public allowances, and improved tax revenue. Changes in parameters, such as productivity, wage growth, and tax rates, can influence the conclusions described here.

Background: Once the patent of a brand-name drug expires, generic drugs are commercialized, and substitution from brand-name to generics may occur. Generic drug equivalence is evaluated through comparative bioavailability studies. Few studies have assessed outcomes after generic drug commercialization at a population level. We evaluated the impact of 3 generic angiotensin II receptor blockers commercialization on adverse events: hospitalizations or emergency room consultations., Methods and Results: This is an interrupted time series analysis using the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System. Rates of adverse events for losartan, valsartan, and candesartan users (N=136 177) aged ≥66 years were calculated monthly, 24 months before and 12 months after generics commercialization. Periods before and after generics commercialization were compared by negative binomial segmented regression models. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted. For all users, there was a monthly mean rate of 100 adverse events for 1000 angiotensin II receptor blocker users before and after generic commercialization. Among generic users of losartan, valsartan, and candesartan, there was an increase in rates of adverse events of 8.0% (difference of proportions versus brand-name, 7.5% [95% confidence interval, -0.9% to 15.9%]; P =0.0643), 11.7% (difference of proportions, 17.1% [95% confidence interval, 9.9%-24.3%]; P <0.0001), and 14.0% (difference of proportions, 16.6% [95% confidence interval, 7.9%-25.3%]; P <0.0001), respectively, the month of generic commercialization. The monthly trend of adverse events was affected for generic versus brand-name losartan users only (difference of proportions, 2.0% [0.7%-3.4%]; P =0.0033) ≤1 year after generics commercialization. Similar results were found in sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: Among generic users, immediate or delayed differences in adverse events rates were observed right after generic commercialization for 3 antihypertensive drugs. Rates of adverse events remained higher for generic users. Increases were more pronounced for generic candesartan, which is the studied product with the largest difference in comparative bioavailability. Risk and survival analysis studies controlling for several potential confounding factors are required to better characterize generic substitution., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

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 & Aims: Few patients from developing countries can afford brand name direct-acting antiviral agents for treating hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and controversy regarding the bioequivalence of generics exists. This study aimed to observe the safety and efficacy of 8 or 12weeks of generic ledipasvir-sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin for Chinese genotype 1b HCV-infected patients., Methods: In this open-labelled observational study, 63 cirrhotic (group 1) and 65 non-cirrhotic (group 2) patients were administered generic ledipasvir-sofosbuvir plus 1000-1200mg of ribavirin daily for 12 and 8weeks, respectively; and 64 non-cirrhotic patients (group 3) received ledipasvir-sofosbuvir for 8weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was undetectable HCV RNA at week 12 (SVR12) after cessation of therapy. Safety and pharmacokinetic data were collected., Results: One hundred and eighty-seven patients completed treatment, and the latest undetectable HCV RNA was observed in three patients with cirrhosis at week 5 during treatment. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed 96.8% (61/63), 96.9% (63/65), and 96.9% (62/64) of SVR12 rates in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. One patient in group 3 relapsed at post-treatment week 4. The regimens were generally well-tolerated. The most common adverse events were fatigue (17.8%), diarrhea (10.9%), and headache (9.9%). Four patients discontinued therapy due to diarrhea and vomiting. One patient from group 2 discontinued treatment on day 29 because of drug-unaffordability; fortunately, she achieved SVR12., Conclusion: This study demonstrated that 8 or 12weeks of generic ledipasvir-sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin are safe and effective for patients with genotype 1b HCV infection., Lay Summary: The price of Harvoni® has led to restrictions and access limitations in many developing and even developed countries with limited healthcare budgets. Gilead approved generic ledipasvir-sofosbuvir costs far less than Harvoni® and presents a similar cure rate for patients with chronic hepatitis C., (Copyright © 2017 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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: 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: 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.

Objectives: To estimate change in chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) disease and the economic burden associated with comprehensive treatment of the chronic HCV-infected Medicaid population., Study Design: Decision-analytic Markov model., Methods: Treatment-naïve patients with genotype 1 chronic HCV were followed over a lifetime horizon from the third-party payer perspective. Patients entered the model insured under Medicaid and were treated under state-specific restrictions by Metavir fibrosis stage (base case) or all treated (all-patient strategy) with an approved all-oral regimen (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir [LDV/SOF] for 8 weeks or 12 weeks, depending on cirrhosis status, viral load, and state-specific LDV/SOF restrictions). Untreated patients were assumed to age into Medicare at 65 years, where they were treated with LDV/SOF without restriction by fibrotic stage., Results: The sustained virologic response (SVR) rate of the current Medicaid LDV/SOF restriction strategy was 75.2% versus 95.9% if all LDV/SOF-eligible patients were treated under Medicaid. Treating all eligible Medicaid patients with LDV/SOF, regardless of fibrotic stage, was projected to result in 36,752 fewer cases of cirrhosis; 1739 fewer liver transplants; 8169 fewer cases of hepatocellular carcinoma; 16,173 fewer HCV-related deaths; 0.84 additional life-years per patient; and 1.03 additional quality-adjusted life-years per patient. Treating all Medicaid patients with chronic HCV using LDV/SOF resulted in a 39.4% ($3.8 billion) savings and decreased the proportion of total costs attributable to downstream costs of care to 18.3%., Conclusions: A "treat all" strategy in a Medicaid population resulted in superior SVRs, substantial reductions in downstream negative clinical outcomes, and considerable cost savings. Current restrictive state policies regarding HCV treatment in Medicaid populations must be reassessed in light of these data.

Background: Infections with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) are a global public health problem. Long-term consequences are the development of liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Newly introduced direct acting antivirals, especially interferon-free regimens, have improved rates of sustained viral response above 90% in most patient groups and allow treating patients who were ineligible for treatment in the past. These new regimens have replaced former treatment and are recommended by current guidelines. However, there is an ongoing discussion on high pharmaceutical prices. Our aim was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of treating hepatitis C genotype 1 patients with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) treatment in Germany., Material and Methods: We used a Markov cohort model to simulate disease progression and assess cost-effectiveness. The model calculates lifetime costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) of SOF/LDV and other strategies. Patients were stratified by treatment status (treatment-naive and treatment-experienced) and absence/presence of cirrhosis. Different treatment strategies were compared to prior standard of care. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate model robustness., Results: Base-case analyses results show that in treatment-naive non-cirrhotic patients treatment with SOF/LDV dominates the prior standard of care (is more effective and less costly). In cirrhotic patients an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 3,383 €/QALY was estimated. In treatment-experienced patients ICERs were 26,426 €/QALY and 1,397 €/QALY for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, respectively. Robustness of results was confirmed in sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: Our analysis shows that treatment with SOF/LDV is cost-effective compared to prior standard of care in all patient groups considering international costs per QALY thresholds., Competing Interests: We have the following interests: This research was conducted with funding from Gilead Sciences. Ines Guerra is employee of MAPI Group, a private research company. Jona T. Stahmeyer received research funding by Gilead, AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag; Travel support/lecture fees by Roche and Janssen-Cilag. Siegbert Rossol received research funding from Gilead and Janssen-Cilag; advisory board member for MSD. Sebastian Liersch received research funding by AbbVie. Christian Krauth received research funding by Gilead, AbbVie and Janssen-Cilag. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a silent epidemic affecting millions of patients and represents the leading indication for liver transplantation in the United States and worldwide. New direct-acting antiviral agents offer the potential to cure patients infected with HCV but it comes at a staggering cost. Given the recent attention to these high-priced HCV therapies and the impact treating individuals with HCV is having on drug expenditures in the United States, there may be a need to revisit drug patent laws and the options the federal government has to ensure patient access to care.

Introduction: We used published literature from 2013-2016, to review data regarding the new all oral interferon and ribavirin free direct acting antiviral (DAA's) treatment regimens. Areas covered: Specifically, this paper will address DAA's clinical efficacy, their associated patient reported outcomes, their adherence to treatment, and their cost-effectiveness of treatment using studies from the United States. Expert commentary: The current data suggest that cure and elimination of HCV appears to be on the horizon; however, more research is needed to verify similar results from real world practices. Further, research is also needed to overcome the barriers to treatment (lack of education and awareness of HCV, inadequate diagnosis technology, and lack of access and link to care) in order for the elimination of HCV to be obtained.

Prisoners bear much of the burden of the hepatitis C epidemic in the United States. Yet little is known about the scope and cost of treating hepatitis C in state prisons-particularly since the release of direct-acting antiviral medications. In the forty-one states whose departments of corrections reported data, 106,266 inmates (10 percent of their prisoners) were known to have hepatitis C on or about January 1, 2015. Only 949 (0.89 percent) of those inmates were being treated. Prices for a twelve-week course of direct-acting antivirals such as sofosbuvir and the combination drug ledipasvir/sofosbuvir varied widely as of September 30, 2015 ($43,418-$84,000 and $44,421-$94,500, respectively). Numerous corrections departments received smaller discounts than other government agencies did. To reduce the hepatitis C epidemic, state governments should increase funding for treating infected inmates. State departments of corrections should consider collaborating with other government agencies to negotiate discounts with pharmaceutical companies and with qualified health care facilities to provide medications through the federal 340B Drug Discount Program. Helping inmates transition to providers in the community upon release can enhance the gains achieved by treating hepatitis C in prison., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Introduction: New treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) are highly effective in patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of treatments for genotype 1 (GT1) HCV in HIV-coinfected patients., Methods: A Markov model based on HCV natural history was used. The base-case analysis included both treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Alternatives were ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir, dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (3D ± R) for 12 or 24 weeks, sofosbuvir plus peginterferon and R (SOF + PR) for 12 weeks, SOF + R for 24 weeks, and no treatment (NT). A subgroup analysis restricted to treatment-naïve, non-cirrhotic patients compared 3D ± R for 12 weeks to SOF plus ledipasvir (LDV) for 12 weeks and NT. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes were measured over a lifetime horizon and included rates of compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related death, total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)., Results: In the base-case, SOF + R was dominated by both SOF + PR and 3D ± R. Compared to SOF + PR, 3D ± R had an ICER of $45,581. The lifetime rates of liver morbidity and mortality were lower among those treated with 3D ± R compared to SOF + PR, SOF + R, or NT. In the subgroup analysis, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY (ICER $27,496). SOF/LDV had an ICER of $104,489 per QALY gained compared to 3D ± R., Conclusion: In the GT1 HCV population coinfected with HIV, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT, SOF + R, and SOF + PR. In the treatment-naïve sub-population, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT and SOF/LDV.

Objective: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral therapies currently recommended for treating genotypes (GT) 1 and 4 chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients in the US., Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for CHC from a US payer's perspective over a lifelong time horizon was performed. A Markov model based on the natural history of CHC was used for a population that included treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Treatment alternatives considered for GT1 included ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir ± ribavirin (3D ± R), sofosbuvir + ledipasvir (SOF/LDV), sofosbuvir + simeprevir (SOF + SMV), simeprevir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin (SMV + PR) and no treatment (NT). For GT4 treatments, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + ribavirin (2D + R), SOF/LDV and NT were compared. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs were obtained from published literature. Outcomes included rates of compensated cirrhosis (CC), decompensated cirrhosis (DCC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver-related death (LrD), total costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and QALYs were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios., Results: In GT1 patients, 3D ± R and SOF-containing regimens have similar long-term outcomes; 3D ± R had the lowest lifetime risks of all liver disease outcomes: CC = 30.2%, DCC = 5.0 %, HCC = 6.8%, LT = 1.9% and LrD = 9.2%. In GT1 patients, 3D ± R had the lowest cost and the highest QALYs. As a result, 3D ± R dominated these treatment options. In GT4 patients, 2D + R had lower rates of liver morbidity and mortality, lower cost and more QALYs than SOF/LDV and NT., Limitations: While the results are based on input values, which were obtained from a variety of heterogeneous sources-including clinical trials, the findings were robust across a plausible range of input values, as demonstrated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: Among currently recommended treatments for GT1 and GT4 in the US, 3D ± R (for GT1) and 2D + R (for GT4) have a favorable cost-effectiveness profile.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Gilead, the company manufacturing ledipasvir-sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of LDV/SOF for treating chronic hepatitis C. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) Technology Assessment Group was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company's submission (CS), the ERG review and the subsequent decision of the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence of LDV/SOF based upon the CS. The clinical effectiveness data for LDV/SOF were taken from ten trials: three phase III trials and seven phase II trials. Trials compared different durations of LDV/SOF, with and without ribavirin (RBV). There were no head-to-head trials comparing LDV/SOF with any comparator listed in the NICE scope. Data from the trials were mostly from populations with genotype 1 (GT1) disease, although some limited data were available for populations with genotypes 3 and 4. For GT1 treatment-naïve patients, sustained viral response for 12 weeks (SVR12) rates for LDV/SOF ranged from 93.1 to 99.4 % for subgroups of patients with non-cirrhotic disease, whilst SVR rates of 94.1 to 100 % were reported for subgroups of patients with compensated cirrhosis. For GT1 treatment-experienced patients, SVR12 rates ranging from 95.4 to 100 % were reported for subgroups of non-cirrhotic patients, and SVR rates ranging from 81.8 to 100 % were reported within subgroups of patients with compensated cirrhosis. Comparator data were not searched systematically as part of the submission, but were based on the company's previous NICE submission of sofosbuvir, with additional targeted searches. The ERG's critical appraisal of the company's economic evaluation highlighted a number of concerns. The ERG's base case analyses suggested that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for LDV/SOF (+RBV) are dependent on (a) treatment durations, (b) whether patients have been previously treated and (c) whether patients have liver cirrhosis or not. The AC concluded that it was appropriate to use the approach taken in the ERG's exploratory analyses, in line with the marketing authorisation, which considered people with and without cirrhosis separately, and estimated the cost effectiveness for each recommended treatment duration of LDV/SOF.

Background: Little is known on the cost-effectiveness of novel regimens for hepatitis C virus (HCV) compared with standard-of-care with pegylated interferon (pegIFN) and ribavirin (RBV) therapy in developing countries. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir/ledipasvir for 12 weeks compared with a 48-week pegIFN-RBV regimen in Chinese patients with genotype 1b HCV infection by economic regions., Methods: A decision analytic Markov model was developed to estimate quality-adjusted-life-years, lifetime cost of HCV infection and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). SVR rates and direct medical costs were obtained from real-world data. Parameter uncertainty was assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Threshold analysis was conducted to estimate the price which can make the regimen cost-effective and affordable., Results: Sofosbuvir/ledipasvir was cost-effective in treatment-experienced patients with an ICER of US$21,612. It varied by economic regions. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 18% and 47% for treatment-naive and experienced patients, and it ranged from 15% in treatment-naïve patients in Central-China to 64% in treatment-experienced patients in Eastern-China. The price of 12-week sofosbuvir/ledipasvir treatment needs to be reduced by at least 81% to US$18,185 to make the regimen cost-effective in all patients at WTP of one time GDP per capita. The price has to be US$105 to make the regimen affordable in average patients in China., Conclusion: Sofosbuvir/ledipasvir regimen is not cost-effective in most Chinese patients with genotype 1b HCV infection. The results vary by economic regions. Drug price of sofosbuvir/ledipasvir needs to be substantially reduced when entering the market in China to ensure the widest accessibility.

Background: Interferon-free hepatitis C treatment regimens are effective but very costly. The cost-effectiveness, budget, and public health impacts of current Medicaid treatment policies restricting treatment to patients with advanced disease remain unknown., Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of current Medicaid policies restricting hepatitis C treatment to patients with advanced disease compared with a strategy providing unrestricted access to hepatitis C treatment, assess the budget and public health impact of each strategy, and estimate the feasibility and long-term effects of increased access to treatment for patients with hepatitis C., Methods: Using a Markov model, we compared two strategies for 45- to 55-year-old Medicaid beneficiaries: 1) Current Practice-only advanced disease is treated before Medicare eligibility and 2) Full Access-both early-stage and advanced disease are treated before Medicare eligibility. Patients could develop progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma, undergo transplantation, or die each year. Morbidity was reduced after successful treatment. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and compared the costs and public health effects of each strategy from the perspective of Medicare alone as well as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services perspective. We varied model inputs in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Results: Full Access was less costly and more effective than Current Practice for all cohorts and perspectives, with differences in cost ranging from $5,369 to $11,960 and in effectiveness from 0.82 to 3.01 quality-adjusted life-years. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Full Access was cost saving in 93% of model iterations. Compared with Current Practice, Full Access averted 5,994 hepatocellular carcinoma cases and 121 liver transplants per 100,000 patients., Conclusions: Current Medicaid policies restricting hepatitis C treatment to patients with advanced disease are more costly and less effective than unrestricted, full-access strategies. Collaboration between state and federal payers may be needed to realize the full public health impact of recent innovations in hepatitis C treatment., (Copyright © 2016 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: New hepatitis C virus (HCV) medicines have markedly improved treatment efficacy and regimen tolerability. However, their high prices have limited access, prompting wide debate about fair and affordable prices. This study systematically compared the price and affordability of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir/sofosbuvir across 30 countries to assess affordability to health systems and patients., Methods and Findings: Published 2015 ex-factory prices for a 12-wk course of treatment were provided by the Pharma Price Information (PPI) service of the Austrian public health institute Gesundheit Österreich GmbH or were obtained from national government or drug reimbursement authorities and recent press releases, where necessary. Prices in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries and select low- and middle-income countries were converted to US dollars using period average exchange rates and were adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP). We analysed prices compared to national economic performance and estimated market size and the cost of these drugs in terms of countries' annual total pharmaceutical expenditure (TPE) and in terms of the duration of time an individual would need to work to pay for treatment out of pocket. Patient affordability was calculated using 2014 OECD average annual wages, supplemented with International Labour Organization median wage data where necessary. All data were compiled between 17 July 2015 and 25 January 2016. For the base case analysis, we assumed a 23% rebate/discount on the published price in all countries, except for countries with special pricing arrangements or generic licensing agreements. The median nominal ex-factory price of a 12-wk course of sofosbuvir across 26 OECD countries was US$42,017, ranging from US$37,729 in Japan to US$64,680 in the US. Central and Eastern European countries had higher PPP-adjusted prices than other countries: prices of sofosbuvir in Poland and Turkey (PPP$101,063 and PPP$70,331) and of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in Poland (PPP$118,754) were at least 1.09 and 1.63 times higher, respectively than in the US (PPP$64,680 and PPP$72,765). Based on PPP-adjusted TPE and without the cost of ribavirin and other treatment costs, treating the entire HCV viraemic population with these regimens at the PPP-adjusted prices with a 23% price reduction would amount to at least one-tenth of current TPE across the countries included in this study, ranging from 10.5% of TPE in the Netherlands to 190.5% of TPE in Poland. In 12 countries, the price of a course of sofosbuvir without other costs was equivalent to 1 y or more of the average annual wage of individuals, ranging from 0.21 y in Egypt to 5.28 y in Turkey. This analysis relies on the accuracy of price information and infection prevalence estimates. It does not include the costs of diagnostic testing, supplementary treatments, treatment for patients with reinfection or cirrhosis, or associated health service costs., Conclusions: Current prices of these medicines are variable and unaffordable globally. These prices threaten the sustainability of health systems in many countries and prevent large-scale provision of treatment. Stakeholders should implement a fairer pricing framework to deliver lower prices that take account of affordability. Without lower prices, countries are unlikely to be able to increase investment to minimise the burden of hepatitis C.

Objectives: Studies of hepatitis C virus (HCV) regimens have documented substantially reduced effectiveness in sustained virologic response (SVR) in the context of real-world clinical practice compared with clinical trials. Real-world and clinical trial SVR and cost-per-SVR data have not been reported for the all-oral, peginterferon-free and ribavirin (RBV)-free ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) regimen. Our objective was to compare the rates of SVR achievement and cost per SVR between pooled data from clinical studies of LDV/SOF and from real-world clinical practice., Methods: Data were derived from the Hepatitis C Therapeutic Registry and Research Network (HCV-TARGET), a real-world, multicenter, prospective, observational study; and from the TRIO Network, a retrospective database of HCV-treated patients. The 1-year cost per SVR was calculated as the total cost of an SVR ([cost of treatment regimen, adverse events, and monitoring costs] per SVR) during the first year of treatment., Results: After 12 weeks, the SVR rates obtained in real-world studies ranged from 94% to 98%, comparing favorably with the SVRs achieved in the ION-1 and ION-3 trials (94% and 95%-99% with 8 and 12 weeks of RBV-free therapy, respectively). A single SVR, on average, cost $84,989 among patients enrolled in the ION-3 trial, with higher costs ($101,204) among patients with compensated cirrhosis compared with noncirrhotic patients ($81,668). In the pooled TARGET/TRIO population, the average cost of an SVR was $84,770, with costs of $101,380 and $81,368 in patients with compensated cirrhosis and patients without cirrhosis, respectively., Conclusions: Unlike the results obtained with prior HCV regimens, this study suggests that similar SVR rates are achieved with LDV/SOF in clinical trial-based studies and real-world studies. Further, achieving an SVR in real-world clinical practice was not associated with excess costs.

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.

Introduction and Objectives: Recently, three novel non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants received approval for reimbursement in Portugal for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). It is therefore important to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of these new oral anticoagulants in Portuguese AF patients., Methods: A Markov model was used to analyze disease progression over a lifetime horizon. Relative efficacy data for stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic), bleeding (intracranial, other major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding), myocardial infarction and treatment discontinuation were obtained by pairwise indirect comparisons between apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban using warfarin as a common comparator. Data on resource use were obtained from the database of diagnosis-related groups and an expert panel. Model outputs included life years gained, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct healthcare costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)., Results: Apixaban provided the most life years gained and QALYs. The ICERs of apixaban compared to warfarin and dabigatran were €5529/QALY and €9163/QALY, respectively. Apixaban was dominant over rivaroxaban (greater health gains and lower costs). The results were robust over a wide range of inputs in sensitivity analyses. Apixaban had a 70% probability of being cost-effective (at a threshold of €20 000/QALY) compared to all the other therapeutic options., Conclusions: Apixaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin and dabigatran and is dominant over rivaroxaban in AF patients from the perspective of the Portuguese national healthcare system. These conclusions are based on indirect comparisons, but despite this limitation, the information is useful for healthcare decision-makers., (Copyright © 2015 Sociedade Portuguesa de Cardiologia. Published by Elsevier España. All rights reserved.)

Background: New treatments for hepatitis C (HCV) infection hold great promise for cure, but numerous challenges to diagnosing, establishing care, and receiving therapy exist. There are limited data on insurance authorization for these medications., Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients receiving sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LED) from October 11-December 31, 2014 to determine rates and timing of drug authorization. We also determined predictors of approval, and those factors associated with faster decision and approval times., Results: Of 174 patients prescribed HCV therapy during this period, 129 requests were made for SOF/LED, of whom 100 (77.5%) received initial approval, and an additional 17 patients (13.9%) ultimately received approval through the appeals process. Faster approval times were seen in patients with Child-Pugh Class B disease (14.4 vs. 24.7 days, p = 0.048). A higher proportion of patients were initially approved in those with Medicare/Medicaid coverage (92.2% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.002) and those with baseline viral load ≥ 6 million IU/mL (84.1% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.040). Linear regression modeling identified advanced fibrosis, high Model of End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and female gender as significant predictors of shorter decision and approval times. On logistic regression, Medicare/Medicaid coverage (OR 5.96, 95% CI 1.66-21.48) and high viral load (OR 4.52, 95% CI 1.08-19.08) were significant predictors for initial approval., Conclusions: Early analysis of real-world drug authorization outcomes between October-December 2014 reveals that nearly one in four patients are initially denied access to SOF/LED upon initial prescription, although most patients are eventually approved through appeal, which delays treatment initiation. Having Medicare/Medicaid and advanced liver disease resulted in a higher likelihood of approval as well as earlier decision and approval times. More studies are needed to determine factors resulting in higher likelihood of denial and to evaluate approval rates and times after implementation of restrictive prior authorization guidelines.

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.

Background: All oral, highly effective direct-acting antiviral combinations, such as sofosbuvir-ledipasvir, have recently been licensed in Canada but cost as much as $67,000 for a 12-week course of therapy, representing a major economic barrier to predominately single-payer health care systems such as that found in Ontario. In hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 noncirrhotic patients with a baseline viral load of <6 × 10(6) IU⁄mL, treatment with sofosbuvir-ledipasvir can be shortened to eight weeks without compromising ≥95% efficacy. The number of HCV-infected patients in Ontario eligible for shortened therapy, and the associated cost savings, are unknown. The authors propose that treating every patient with shortened therapy, regardless of baseline viral load, would lead to significant public cost savings and collateral efficiencies, enabling increased HCV treatment capacity and cure., Methods: The present study designed a three-part model to investigate the cost of cure per patient and cost savings per patient under three eligibility pathways: conservative, permissive and ideal. In the conservative model, every patient is treated for 12 weeks regardless of baseline viral load, whereas in the permissive model, patients with a baseline viral load <6 × 10(6) IU/mL are treated for eight weeks. In the ideal model, every patient receives eight weeks of therapy regardless of baseline viral load. Relapsed patients are retreated for 12 weeks. Data obtained from the Ontario Public Health Laboratory were used to validate the model and generate the outcomes., Results: In Ontario, 75.34% of HCV genotype 1 patients had a baseline viral load of <6 × 10(6) IU/mL and were eligible for shortened therapy. The cost of cure per patient in the ideal model was $47,328.44, representing a 29% reduction in the cost of curative therapy and 3.5 weeks of shortened treatment duration compared with the conservative model. The ideal model generated a cost savings per patient of $3,855.17 (8% reduction in treatment cost) and 0.7 weeks of shorter therapy compared with the permissive model, and was the shortest and most efficient while maintaining a cure rate ≥95%., Conclusions: These results demonstrate that recommendations for a shortened treatment course of eight weeks using all-oral direct-acting antivirals in HCV genotype 1 noncirrhotic patients, regardless of baseline viral load, affords significant public cost savings and, on a population level, offers opportunities for expanded HCV treatment and cure.

Background: Sofosbuvir and ledipasvir, which have recently been approved for treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, are more efficacious and safer than the old standard of care (oSOC) but are substantially more expensive. Whether and in which patients their improved efficacy justifies their increased cost is unclear., Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir., Design: Microsimulation model of the natural history of HCV infection., Data Sources: Published literature., Target Population: Treatment-naive and treatment-experienced HCV population defined on the basis of HCV genotype, age, and fibrosis distribution in the United States., Time Horizon: Lifetime., Perspective: Third-party payer., Intervention: Simulation of sofosbuvir-ledipasvir compared with the oSOC (interferon-based therapies)., Outcome Measures: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and 5-year spending on antiviral drugs., Results of Base-Case Analysis: Sofosbuvir-based therapies added 0.56 QALY relative to the oSOC at an ICER of $55 400 per additional QALY. The ICERs ranged from $9700 to $284 300 per QALY depending on the patient's status with respect to treatment history, HCV genotype, and presence of cirrhosis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, sofosbuvir-based therapies were cost-effective in 83% of treatment-naive and 81% of treatment-experienced patients. Compared with the oSOC, treating eligible HCV-infected persons in the United States with the new drugs would cost an additional $65 billion in the next 5 years, whereas the resulting cost offsets would be $16 billion., Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Results were sensitive to drug price, drug efficacy, and quality of life after successful treatment., Limitation: Data on real-world effectiveness of new antivirals are lacking., Conclusion: Treatment of HCV is cost-effective in most patients, but additional resources and value-based patient prioritization are needed to manage patients with HCV., Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Background: New regimens for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have shorter treatment durations and increased rates of sustained virologic response compared with existing therapies but are extremely expensive., Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these treatments under different assumptions about their price and efficacy., Design: Discrete-event simulation., Data Sources: Published literature., Target Population: Treatment-naive patients infected with chronic HCV genotype 1, 2, or 3., Time Horizon: Lifetime., Perspective: Societal., Intervention: Usual care (boceprevir-ribavirin-pegylated interferon [PEG]) was compared with sofosbuvir-ribavirin-PEG and 3 PEG-free regimens: sofosbuvir-simeprevir, sofosbuvir-daclatasvir, and sofosbuvir-ledipasvir. For genotypes 2 and 3, usual care (ribavirin-PEG) was compared with sofosbuvir-ribavirin, sofosbuvir-daclatasvir, and sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin (genotype 3 only)., Outcome Measures: Discounted costs (in 2014 U.S. dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios., Results of Base-Case Analysis: Assuming sofosbuvir, simeprevir, daclatasvir, and ledipasvir cost $7000, $5500, $5500, and $875 per week, respectively, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir was cost-effective for genotype 1 and cost $12 825 more per QALY than usual care. For genotype 2, sofosbuvir-ribavirin and sofosbuvir-daclatasvir cost $110 000 and $691 000 per QALY, respectively. For genotype 3, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin cost $73 000 per QALY, sofosbuvir-ribavirin was more costly and less effective than usual care, and sofosbuvir-daclatasvir cost more than $396 000 per QALY at assumed prices., Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Sofosbuvir-ledipasvir was the optimal strategy in most simulations for genotype 1 and would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $5500. For genotype 2, sofosbuvir-ribavirin-PEG would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $2250 per week. For genotype 3, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $1500 per week., Limitation: Data are lacking on real-world effectiveness of new treatments and some prices., Conclusion: From a societal perspective, novel treatments for HCV are cost-effective compared with usual care for genotype 1 and probably genotype 3 but not for genotype 2., Primary Funding Source: CVS Health.

Background: An all-oral, pegylated interferon (pegIFN)-free and ribavirin (RBV)-free single-tablet of ledipasvir (LDV) and sofosbuvir (SOF) is now approved for the treatment of patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1., Aim: To estimate the health economic outcomes for LDV/SOF compared with current treatments in US patients infected with HCV genotype 1., Methods: A hybrid decision-tree and Markov state-transition model was developed. For a cohort of 10,000 patients, the model captured outcomes for several pairings of LDV/SOF with comparators, including long-term health outcomes, number need to treat, life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYS) gained, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and costs per sustained virologic response (SVR). Patients with different levels of treatment experience and different cirrhosis stages were included., Results: LDV/SOF decreased the number of advanced liver disease cases by 0-93% compared with current regimens or no treatment in treatment-naïve patients. In treatment-experienced [pegIFN plus ribavirin (PR) or protease inhibitor (PI) + PR] patients, treatment with LDV/SOF decreased the incidence of advanced liver disease complications in most of the cases analysed, except SOF + SMV. For all patient sub-cohorts, LDV/SOF was associated with the lowest 1-year costs per SVR and, with regard to lifetime incremental costs per QALY gained, was either dominant or the most cost-effective treatment. Overall, treatment initiation at earlier stages of liver fibrosis resulted in improved health economic outcomes., Conclusion: LDV/SOF is associated with more favourable short- and long-term health economic outcomes compared with current therapies for patients across all levels of treatment experience and cirrhosis stages., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Pharmaceutical expenditure is rising by 16% per annum in China and is now 46% of total expenditure. Initiatives to moderate growth include drug pricing regulations and encouraging international non-proprietary name prescribing. However, there is no monitoring of physician prescribing quality and perverse incentives., Objectives: Assess changes in angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) utilization and expenditure as more generics become available; compare findings to Europe., Methodology: Observational retrospective study of ARB utilization and expenditure between 2006 and 2012 in the largest hospital in Chongqing district., Results: Variable and low use of generics versus originators with a maximum of 31% among single ARBs. Similar for fixed dose combinations. Prices typically reduced over time, greatest for generic telmisartan (-54%), mirroring price reductions in some European countries. However, no preferential increase in prescribing of lower cost generics. Accumulated savings of 33 million CNY for this large provider if they adopted European practices., Conclusion: Considerable opportunities to improve prescribing efficiency in China.