Cost-Utility of All-Oral Direct-Acting Antiviral Regimens for the Treatment of Genotype 1 Chronic Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Patients in Hong Kong

Direct-Acting Antivirals Remain Cost-Effective Treatments for Chronic Hepatitis C in Australia Despite Changes to the Treated Population and the Availability of Retreatment: The Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir (Maviret®) Example

INTRODUCTION

The first direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection were reimbursed via Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) in March 2016. This was based on the recommendation from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) that the regimens would be acceptably cost-effective at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) no greater than $15,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Since the initial PBS listings for DAA therapies and subsequent listings of newer DAA treatments such as glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (Maviret®), the demographics and some of the disease characteristics of currently treated patients have markedly changed. This analysis aims to reassess the cost-effectiveness of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir, accounting for the changes to the HCV population currently seeking treatment and incorporating retreatment in first-line failures and the treatment of new infections in previously treated individuals.

METHODS

To assess the cost-effectiveness 7 years after initial listing of DAAs, an update was made to the Markov model used to achieve PBS reimbursement for Viekira-Pak® in May 2016. Amendments to the Viekira-Pak® model include: changes to baseline age and fibrosis distribution of treated patients, and inclusion of retreatment of first-line failures [those not achieving a sustained virologic response (SVR12)] and reinfected individuals. Treatment-related inputs including SVR12 response rates, adverse events, treatment-related disutility, and discontinuations were sourced from pivotal glecaprevir/pibrentasvir clinical trials.

RESULTS

Using the published price of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir, the ICER is below $15,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite changes in demographics and disease characteristics of treated patients, and changes to the model structure to reflect retreatment in clinical practice in Australia, DAAs remain cost-effective in 2023.

Health and economic burden associated with 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine serotypes in Korea and Hong Kong

Use of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) has greatly reduced the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). V114 (VAXNEUVANCE™, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc. Kenilworth, NJ, USA) is a 15-valent PCV currently approved in adults in the United States, containing the 13 serotypes in licensed PCV13 and 2 additional serotypes (22F and 33F) which are important contributors to residual pneumococcal disease. This study quantified the health and economic burden of IPD attributable to V114 serotypes in hypothetical birth cohorts from Korea and Hong Kong. A Markov model was used to estimate the case numbers and costs of IPD in unvaccinated birth cohorts over 20 years. The model was applied to 3 scenarios in Korea (pre-PCV7, pre-PCV13, and post-PCV13) and to 2 scenarios in Hong Kong (pre-PCV7 and post-PCV13). For Korea, the model predicted 62, 26, and 8 IPD cases attributable to V114 serotypes in the pre-PCV7, pre-PCV13, and post-PCV13 scenarios, respectively. Costs of V114-type IPD fell from $1.691 million pre-PCV7 to $.212 million post-PCV13. For Hong Kong, the model estimated 62 V114-associated IPD cases in the pre-PCV7 scenario and 46 in the post-PCV13 scenario. Costs attributed to all V114 serotypes were $2.322 million and $1.726 million in the pre-PCV7 and post-PCV13 periods, respectively. Vaccine-type serotypes are predicted to cause continuing morbidity and cost in Korea (19A) and Hong Kong (3 and 19A). New pediatric pneumococcal vaccines must continue to protect against serotypes in licensed vaccines to maintain disease reduction, while extending coverage to non-vaccine serotypes.

Cost-Effectiveness of Elbasvir/Grazoprevir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: A Systematic Review

Objective

This study aims to systematically review recent economic evaluations of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) for chronic hepatitis C (CHC), to critically appraise the reporting quality and to summarize the results.

Methods

A literature search was undertaken using Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, EconLit, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and Chongqing VIP to identify original articles containing economic evaluations of EBR/GZR for CHC published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2020. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of the articles.

Results

Of 93 articles identified, 13 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in 4 countries, and 8 active interventions were assessed. The target population was patients infected with CHC genotype 1 infection in all studies. Eight out of 13 studies that compared EBR/GZR vs. other direct antiviral agents suggested that EBR/GZR was generally more cost-effective or dominant than daclatasvir/asunaprevir (DCV/ASV), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir (3D) but not more cost-effective than glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB). Two studies from China and one study from the USA that compared EBR/GZR vs. pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV) consistently indicated that EBR/GZR was generally more cost-effective than PegIFN/RBV. One study from Italy compared EBR/GZR with SOF + PegIFN/RBV and suggested that EBR/GZR had a lower cost and higher effectiveness. One study from France and one study from the USA confirmed that compared with non-therapy for patients with chronic kidney disease, EBR/GZR was cost-effective at commonly accepted current standards. All included studies were of good quality of reporting, with an average score of 21.9 (range 19–23).

Conclusion

EBR/GZR for CHC genotype 1 might be cost-effective or dominant compared with PegIFN/RBV and other direct antiviral agents (SOF/VEL, 3D, DCV/ASV, LDF/SOF) or non-therapy. However, under certain assumptions, EBR/GZR was not a cost-effective alternative for CHC patients vs. GLE/PIB.

Hepatitis C virus: A critical approach to who really needs treatment

Introduction of effective drugs in the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has prompted the World Health Organization to declare a global eradication target by 2030. Propositions have been made to screen the general population and treat all HCV carriers irrespective of the disease status. A year ago the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus appeared causing a worldwide pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 disease. Huge financial resources were redirected, and the pandemic became the first priority in every country. In this review, we examined the feasibility of the World Health Organization elimination program and the actual natural course of HCV infection. We also identified and analyzed certain comorbidity factors that may aggravate the progress of HCV and some marginalized subpopulations with characteristics favoring HCV dissemination. Alcohol consumption, HIV coinfection and the presence of components of metabolic syndrome including obesity, hyperuricemia and overt diabetes were comorbidities mostly responsible for increased liver-related morbidity and mortality of HCV. We also examined the significance of special subpopulations like people who inject drugs and males having sex with males. Finally, we proposed a different micro-elimination screening and treatment program that can be implemented in all countries irrespective of income. We suggest that screening and treatment of HCV carriers should be limited only in these particular groups.

Cost-Effectiveness of Testing for NS5A Resistance to Optimize Treatment of Elbasvir/Grazoprevir for Chronic Hepatitis C in China

Objectives: Baseline presence of nonstructural protein 5A (NS5A) resistance-associated variants can attenuate the efficacy of new direct-acting antivirals. A potential method to attain the higher efficacy would be to screen for NS5A polymorphisms prior to the initiation of therapy and to adjust the treatment length based on the test results. However, baseline testing adds additional costs and it is unclear whether this would represent a high value strategy for chronic hepatitis C in China.

Methods: A hybrid model compared 1) standard 12-weeks treatment (no testing), 2) shortened 8-weeks treatment (no testing), and 3) baseline testing with 12-/8-weeks treatment for those with/without NS5A polymorphisms from a lifetime Chinese health care payer perspective. All model inputs were retrieved from clinical trials and publically available literature. And sensitivity analyses were also conducted to assess the impact of uncertainty.

Results: Baseline testing was associated with overall increase in total health care cost of USD 13.50 and in QALYs of 0.002 compared with standard 12-weeks treatment (no testing), yielded in an ICER of USD 6750/QALY gained. Scenario analyses suggested that shortened 8-weeks treatment (no testing) was found to be lower costs and great QALYs compared with other two strategies when the sustained virologic response (SVR) rate increased to 95%. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust.

Conclusions: Our results suggest prior assessment of NS5A sensitivity followed by optimizing treatment duration was an economic strategy. In addition, shortened 8-weeks treatment (no testing) was shown to be dominant with the SVR rate increased to 95%.

Seraprevir and sofosbuvir for treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection: A single-arm, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This single-arm, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of seraprevir, an hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural protein 3/4A (NS3/4A) inhibitor, combined with sofosbuvir for treating Chinese patients with chronic HCV infection without cirrhosis.

METHODS

Treatment-naive or interferon-experienced adult patients without cirrhosis were treated with a universal, combinational regimen of seraprevir 100 mg, twice daily and sofosbuvir 400 mg, once daily, for 12 or 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virologic response at week 12 after treatment (SVR12).

RESULTS

Overall, 205 patients with genotype 1 HCV infection without cirrhosis were enrolled from 23 sites, 202 of whom completed the full treatment and post-treatment course and 3 discontinued follow-up. In total, 27 patients (13.2%) were interferon experienced. SVR12 was achieved by 201 out of 205 (98.0% [95% CI, 95.1%, 99.5%]) patients, 100.0% of patients with genotype 1a, and 98.0% of genotype 1b. In the other exploratory study, SVR 12 was achieved by 100% patients with genotype 2 (n = 21), genotype 3 (n = 7), and genotype 6 (n = 8). The majority of adverse events were mild to moderate and transient and did not require a specific medical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The all-oral, ribavirin-free regimen of seraprevir and sofosbuvir is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for Chinese patients mono-infected with HCV, including those with a history of interferon treatment.

Expanding reimbursement of immediate treatment using direct acting antivirals to reduce hepatitis C incidence among HIV positive men who have sex with men in Bangkok, Thailand: A cost effectiveness modelling study

BACKGROUND

Increasing number of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections among HIV positive men whohave sex with men (MSM) as in an acute HIV infection cohort study in Bangkok, reached an incidence of 45/1000 person-years in 2018. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), that cure HCV infection and thereby can prevent transmission, are expensive, their reimbursement being presently delayed to the chronic stages of liver fibrosis. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of immediate DAA treatment to reduce HCV transmission among HIV positive MSM in Bangkok.

METHODS

A deterministic transmission model was calibrated to the HCV epidemic among HIV positive MSM in Bangkok. We compared the current practice of starting DAAs at METAVIR stage F2 rather than at stage F1, or immediately after diagnosis, at stage F0. Cost-effectiveness was examined from a payer's perspective, using a 3% annual discounting rate.

RESULTS

Compared to the incidence in 2018, delaying DAA treatment to METAVIR stage F2 or F1, increases HCV incidence in 2030 to 63/1000 person-years and 56/1000 person-years, respectively. Conversely, immediate DAA treatment reduces the incidence to 26/1000 person-years. Compared to initiating treatment at stage F2, immediate treatment is cost saving within seven years and saves $17 million over 40 years. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that lower cost savings were achieved at a higher price of DAA treatment and at less frequent HCV screening.

CONCLUSION

Immediate DAA treatment is cost saving and increases health benefits by reducing HCV incidence among HIV-infected MSM.