Search

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.

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.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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.

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.)

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: 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.

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.

The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate state Medicaid policies for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with sofosbuvir in the United States. Medicaid reimbursement criteria for sofosbuvir were evaluated in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The authors searched state Medicaid Web sites between 23 June and 7 December 2014 and extracted data in duplicate. Any differences were resolved by consensus. Data were extracted on whether sofosbuvir was covered and the criteria for coverage based on the following categories: liver disease stage, HIV co-infection, prescriber type, and drug or alcohol use. Of the 42 states with known Medicaid reimbursement criteria for sofosbuvir, 74% limit sofosbuvir access to persons with advanced fibrosis (Meta-Analysis of Histologic Data in Viral Hepatitis [METAVIR] fibrosis stage F3) or cirrhosis (F4). One quarter of states require persons co-infected with HCV and HIV to be receiving antiretroviral therapy or to have suppressed HIV RNA levels. Two thirds of states have restrictions based on prescriber type, and 88% include drug or alcohol use in their sofosbuvir eligibility criteria, with 50% requiring a period of abstinence and 64% requiring urine drug screening. Heterogeneity is present in Medicaid reimbursement criteria for sofosbuvir with respect to liver disease staging, HIV co-infection, prescriber type, and drug or alcohol use across the United States. Restrictions do not seem to conform with recommendations from professional organizations, such as the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Current restrictions seem to violate federal Medicaid law, which requires states to cover drugs consistent with their U.S. Food and Drug Administration labels.

Background: A new scenario of therapy for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is being established with the approval of sofosbuvir (SOF)., Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of SOF-based regimens approved in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) versus the standard of care for different genotypes and patient populations (naive or pretreated)., Methods: A Markov model simulating CHC progression was used to estimate disease treatment costs and effects over patients' lifetimes, from the Spanish National Public Healthcare System perspective. Different therapeutic options were analysed for genotypes 1, 2 and 3 in naive population and for genotype 2 and 3 pretreated patients, according to data obtained from clinical trials. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the uncertainty of certain parameters: treatment starting age, transition probabilities, drug costs and discount rate. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also carried out., Results: For the naive population, the option SOF+pegylated-interferon-α (pIFN)+ribavirin (RBV) for 12 weeks recorded in SmPC for genotype 1 and 3 versus pIFN+RBV for 24 weeks estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the €40,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benchmark. For the pretreated population, SOF triple therapy reached an ICER on the threshold limit for genotype 3. Other options included in SmPC for different genotypes exceeded the accepted efficiency limit in our setting., Conclusions: The options that included SOF+RBV+pIFN in a 12-week course regimen fell below the efficiency threshold considered in our setting. IFN-free regimens administered for 24 weeks reached figures over the benchmark of €40,000/QALY., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

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.

Hepatitis C infection is the most common blood-borne infection in the United States with an estimated 2.7 million individuals suffering from chronic infection. Of those who are infected with Hepatitis C virus, 75-85% develop chronic infection. Without treatment for chronic infection, individuals can develop liver diseases, such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, during many years of asymptomatic infection. To examine the burden of Hepatitis C virus infection in the state, the Arkansas Department of Health created an epidemiologic profile based on data collected in 2013 from several data sources, including the department's Hepatitis C surveillance program. In order to make more Arkansans aware of their infection, the local health units in all 75 counties of the state recently began screening individuals at risk for the disease, including persons born during the years 1945-1965. Despite recent advances in treatment efficacy, identifying infected individuals and connecting patients to affordable HCV treatment and care remain priorities.

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.

Patients with chronic HCV have predictable overlapping comorbidities that reduce access to care. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) presents an opportunity to focus on the benefits of the medical home model for integrated chronic disease management. New, highly effective HCV treatment regimens in combination with the medical home model could reduce disease prevalence. We sought to address challenges posed by comorbidities in patients with chronic HCV infection and limitations within our health care system, and recommend solutions to maximize the public benefit from ACA and the new drug regimen.

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.)

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

Sofosbuvir is the first-in-class NS5B nucleotide analogues to be launched for hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment. Its viral potency, pangenotypic activity and high barrier to resistance make it the ideal candidate to become a backbone for several IFN-free regimens. Recent data demonstrated that sofosbuvir either with ribavirin alone or in combination with other direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) as daclatasvir, ledipasvir or simeprevir are able to cure HCV in at least 90% or over of patients. Treatment experienced genotype 3 population may remain the most difficult to treat population, but ongoing DAA combination studies will help to fill this gap. Safety profile of sofosbuvir or combination with other DAAs is good. Resistance to sofosbuvir did not appear as a significant issue. The rationale for using this class of drug and the available clinical data are reviewed., (Copyright © 2014 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Hepatitis C is an important cause of chronic liver disease worldwide with an estimated 170 million people infected. Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients are physically and mentally impacted by fatigue, depression and anxiety causing an impairment of health related quality of life (HRQOL), lower worker productivity and other patient reported outcomes (PROs). Although anti-HCV regimens containing first generation direct acting antiviral agents (DAAs) were associated with significant side effects, the second generation DAAs, sofosbuvir (SOF) and simeprevir (SMV), are associated with fewer side effects, better tolerability and high cure rates. Despite these advantages, key stakeholders are currently trying to find ways to best integrate these new therapeutic regimens into the management of patients with chronic hepatitis C for the benefit of all. The purpose of this article is to offer insight into the other key and equally important outcomes (PRO's, HRQOL and cost) which should be considered when assessing the applicability of these new regimens for the care of patients infected with HCV. Our review provides evidence that the new treatment regimens for HCV not only have high efficacy rates but are also associated with better patient reported outcomes and cost per case of HCV cured. Additionally, compared to other medical interventions, these new regimens are cost-effective from a societal perspective., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Prevalence of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is high among incarcerated persons in the United States. New, short-duration, high-efficacy therapies may expand treatment eligibility in this population., Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir for HCV treatment in incarcerated populations., Design: Markov model., Data Sources: Published literature and expert opinion., Target Population: Treatment-naive men with chronic, genotype 1 HCV monoinfection., Time Horizon: Lifetime., Perspective: Societal., Intervention: No treatment, 2-drug therapy (pegylated interferon and ribavirin), or 3-drug therapy with either boceprevir or sofosbuvir. For inmates with short remaining sentences (<1.5 years), only no treatment or sofosbuvir 3-drug therapy was feasible; for those with long sentences (≥1.5 years; mean, 10 years), all strategies were considered. After release, eligible persons could receive sofosbuvir 3-drug therapy., Outcome Measures: Discounted costs (in 2013 U.S. dollars), discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios., Results of Base-Case Analysis: The strategies yielded 13.12, 13.57, 14.43, and 15.18 QALYs, respectively, for persons with long sentences. Sofosbuvir produced the largest absolute reductions in decompensated cirrhosis (16%) and hepatocellular carcinoma (9%), resulting in 2.1 additional QALYs at an added cost exceeding $54,000 compared with no treatment. For persons with short sentences, sofosbuvir cost $25,700 per QALY gained compared with no treatment; for those with long sentences, it dominated other treatments, costing $28,800 per QALY gained compared with no treatment., Results of Sensitivity Analysis: High reinfection rates in prison attenuated cost-effectiveness for persons with long sentences., Limitations: Data on sofosbuvir's long-term effectiveness and price are limited. The analysis did not consider women, Hispanic persons, or patients co-infected with HIV or hepatitis B virus., Conclusion: Sofosbuvir-based treatment is cost-effective for incarcerated persons, but affordability is an important consideration., Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Background: Sofosbuvir, an oral NS5B nucleotide polymerase inhibitor, is indicated for the treatment of patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV)., Aim: To evaluate the long-term health economic outcomes of sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon alfa/ribavirin (pegIFN/RBV) compared with current treatments in patients infected with HCV genotype 1 in the US., Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to estimate health outcomes, number needed to treat and short-term and long-term economic outcomes, including incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost per sustained virological response (SVR), for several sofosbuvir-comparator regimen pairings for a cohort of 10 000 patients. It considered three patient cohorts: treatment-naïve, treatment-experienced and treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co-infected. Subgroup analyses were conducted for treatment-naïve patients with and without cirrhosis., Results: Reductions in the incidence of new cases of liver-disease complications with sofosbuvir + pegIFN/RBV compared with pegIFN/RBV, boceprevir + pegIFN/RBV, telaprevir + pegIFN/RBV and simeprevir + pegIFN/RBV were 64-82%, 50-68%, 43-58% and 33-56%, respectively. Sofosbuvir + pegIFN/RBV was typically associated with the lowest 1-year cost per SVR. When considering the lifetime incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, sofosbuvir + pegIFN/RBV was the most cost-effective treatment option assessed. Sofosbuvir + pegIFN/RBV generally dominated (less costly and more effective than) boceprevir + pegIFN/RBV, telaprevir + pegIFN/RBV and simeprevir + pegIFN/RBV., Conclusion: Sofosbuvir + pegIFN/RBV yields more favourable future health and economic outcomes than current treatment regimens for patients across all levels of treatment experience and cirrhosis stage, as well as for individuals with or without HIV co-infection., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)