The cost-effectiveness of improved hepatitis C virus therapies in HIV/hepatitis C virus coinfected patients

Clinical- and Cost-Effectiveness of Liver Disease Staging in Hepatitis C Virus Infection: A Microsimulation Study

BACKGROUND

Liver disease assessment is a key aspect of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection pre-treatment evaluation but guidelines differ on the optimal testing modality given trade-offs in availability and accuracy. We compared clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of common fibrosis staging strategies.

METHODS

We simulated adults with chronic HCV receiving care at US health centers through a lifetime microsimulation across five strategies: (1) no staging or treatment (comparator), (2) indirect serum biomarker testing (Fibrosis-4 index [FIB-4]) only, (3) transient elastography (TE) only, (4) staged approach: FIB-4 for all, TE only for intermediate FIB-4 scores (1.45-3.25), and (5) both tests for all. Outcomes included infections cured, cirrhosis cases, liver-related deaths, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We used literature-informed loss to follow-up (LTFU) rates and 2021 Medicaid perspective and costs.

RESULTS

FIB-4 alone generated the best clinical outcomes: 87.7% cured, 8.7% developed cirrhosis, and 4.6% had liver-related deaths. TE strategies cured 58.5%-76.6%, 16.8%-29.4% developed cirrhosis, and 11.6%-22.6% had liver-related deaths. All TE strategies yielded worse clinical outcomes at higher costs per QALY than FIB-4 only, which had an ICER of $12 869 per QALY gained compared with no staging or treatment. LTFU drove these findings: TE strategies were only cost-effective with no LTFU. In a point-of-care HCV test-and-treat scenario, treatment without any staging was most clinically and cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

FIB-4 staging alone resulted in optimal clinical outcomes and was cost-effective. Treatment for chronic HCV should not be delayed while awaiting fibrosis staging with TE.

A study protocol for Project I-Test: a cluster randomized controlled trial of a practice coaching intervention to increase HIV testing in substance use treatment programs

BACKGROUND

People with substance use disorders are vulnerable to acquiring HIV. Testing is fundamental to diagnosis, treatment, and prevention; however, in the past decade, there has been a decline in the number of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs offering on-site HIV testing. Fewer than half of SUDs in the USA offer on-site HIV testing. In addition, nearly a quarter of newly diagnosed cases have AIDS at the time of diagnosis. Lack of testing is one of the main reasons that annual HIV incidences have remained constant over time. Integration of HIV testing with testing for HCV, an infection prevalent among persons vulnerable to HIV infection, and in settings where they receive health services, including opioid treatment programs (OTPs), is of great public health importance.

METHODS/DESIGN

In this 3-arm cluster-RCT of opioid use disorders treatment programs, we test the effect of two evidence-based "practice coaching" (PC) interventions on the provision and sustained implementation of on-site HIV testing, on-site HIV/HCV testing, and linkage to care. Using the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services data available from SAMHSA, 51 sites are randomly assigned to one of the three conditions: practice coach facilitated structured conversations around implementing change, with provision of resources and documents to support the implementation of (1) HIV testing only, or (2) HIV/HCV testing, and (3) a control condition that provides a package with information only. We collect quantitative (e.g., HIV and HCV testing at 6-month-long intervals) and qualitative site data near the time of randomization, and again approximately 7-12 months after randomization.

DISCUSSION

Innovative and comprehensive approaches that facilitate and promote the adoption and sustainability of HIV and HCV testing in opioid treatment programs are important for addressing and reducing HIV and HCV infection rates. This study is one of the first to test organizational approaches (practice coaching) to increase HIV and HIV/HCV testing and linkage to care among individuals receiving treatment for opioid use disorder. The study may provide valuable insight and knowledge on the multiple levels of intervention that, if integrated, may better position OTPs to improve and sustain testing practices and improve population health.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03135886. Registered on 2 May 2017.

A study protocol for Project I-Test: a cluster randomized controlled trial of a practice coaching intervention to increase HIV testing in substance use treatment programs

Background People with substance use disorders are vulnerable to acquiring HIV. Testing is fundamental to diagnosis, treatment, and prevention; however, in the past decade, there has been a decline in the number of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs offering on-site HIV testing. Fewer than half of SUDs in the United States offer on-site HIV testing. In addition, nearly a quarter of newly diagnosed cases have AIDS at the time of diagnosis. Lack of testing is one of the main reasons that annual HIV incidences have remained constant over time. Integration of HIV testing with testing for HCV, an infection prevalent among persons vulnerable to HIV infection, and in settings where they receive health services, including opioid treatment programs (OTPs), is of great public health importance. Methods/Design In this 3-arm cluster-RCT of opioid use disorders treatment programs, we test the effect of two evidence-based "practice coaching" (PC) interventions on: the provision and sustained implementation of on-site HIV testing, on-site HIV/HCV testing, and linkage to care. Using the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services data available from SAMHSA, 51 sites are randomly assigned to one of the three conditions: practice coach facilitated structured conversations around implementing change, with provision of resources and documents to support the implementation of (1) HIV testing only, or (2) HIV/HCV testing, and (3) a control condition that provides a package with information only. We collect quantitative (e,g., HIV and HCV testing at six-month-long intervals) and qualitative site data near the time of randomization, and again approximately 7-12 months after randomization. Discussion Innovative and comprehensive approaches that facilitate and promote the adoption and sustainability of HIV and HCV testing in opioid treatment programs are important for addressing and reducing HIV and HCV infection rates. This study is one of the first to test organizational approaches (practice coaching) to increase HIV and HIV/HCV testing and linkage to care among individuals receiving treatment for opioid use disorder. The study may provide valuable insight and knowledge on the multiple levels of intervention that, if integrated, may better position OTPs to improve and sustain testing practices and improve population health. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03135886. (02 05 2017).

Cost-effectiveness and Budgetary Impact of Hepatitis C Virus Testing, Treatment, and Linkage to Care in US Prisons

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing and treatment uptake in prisons remains low. We aimed to estimate clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness (CE), and budgetary impact (BI) of HCV testing and treatment in United States (US) prisons or linkage to care at release.

METHODS

We used individual-based simulation modeling with healthcare and Department of Corrections (DOC) perspectives for CE and BI analyses, respectively. We simulated a US prison cohort at entry using published data and Washington State DOC individual-level data. We considered permutations of testing (risk factor based, routine at entry or at release, no testing), treatment (if liver fibrosis stage ≥F3, for all HCV infected or no treatment), and linkage to care (at release or no linkage). Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALY); cases identified, treated, and cured; cirrhosis cases avoided; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios; DOC costs (2016 US dollars); and BI (healthcare cost/prison entrant) to generalize to other states.

RESULTS

Compared to "no testing, no treatment, and no linkage to care," the "test all, treat all, and linkage to care at release" model increased the lifetime sustained virologic response by 23%, reduced cirrhosis cases by 54% at a DOC annual additional cost of $1440 per prison entrant, and would be cost-effective. At current drug prices, targeted testing and liver fibrosis-based treatment provided worse outcomes at higher cost or worse outcomes at higher cost per QALY gained. In sensitivity analysis, fibrosis-based treatment restrictions were cost-effective at previous higher drug costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although costly, widespread testing and treatment in prisons is considered to be of good value at current drug prices.

Economic evaluation in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network: Past, present, and future

Economic evaluations provide evidence that informs stakeholders on how to efficiently allocate real and financial healthcare resources. The purpose of this study was to review and discuss the integration of economic evaluations into the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) since its inception, as well as expectations for the future of this relationship. A systematic review was performed on published and planned CTN economic evaluations in the CTN dissemination library and PubMed. The well-established Drummond checklist was used to evaluate the comprehensiveness and methodological rigor of published articles. One hundred thirty-eight ancillary, follow-up, or original protocols were reviewed, and 78 potentially relevant published articles were identified. A total number of 14 protocols included an economic evaluation. Of these, 6 protocols were completed, 2 were reported as active, and 6 were reported as in-development at the time of this review. Of the 78 published articles, 9 met the inclusion criteria. As gauged by the Drummond checklist, the quality of CTN published economic evaluations were found to improve over time, and recent published articles were identified as guides to cutting-edge economic research. As the CTN continues to grow and mature, it is imperative that high-quality economic evaluations are incorporated alongside trials in order to maximize the public health impact of the CTN.

Burden of Co-Infection: A Cost Analysis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus in a Commercially Insured Hepatitis C Virus Population

Introduction

In patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) represents a major cause of morbidity and economic burden. Economic evaluations in HIV-HCV typically focus on government-sponsored insurance plans rather than a commercially insured cohort. This study evaluated the clinical and economic burden of HIV-HCV co-infection compared with HCV alone in commercially insured patients throughout the United States.

Methods

Commercial medical and pharmacy claims from 2007 to 2015 from a 10% random sample of enrollees within the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus™ administrative claims database were analyzed. Patients were included based on the presence of a claim with a HCV diagnosis across three separate cross-sectional periods which were created from the full dataset (2007–2009, 2010–2012, and 2013–2015). Costs incurred were categorized as emergency department, inpatient, outpatient medical, outpatient pharmacy, and other, based on the claim place of service. Descriptive statistics and proportion of total costs in each group have been reported for all cost categories.

Results

The samples included 22,329 from 2007 to 2009, 23,186 from 2010 to 2012, and 27,288 from 2013 to 2015. In all three cross-sections, HIV-HCV individuals were more likely to be male and carriers of hepatitis B virus. Pharmacy costs were $29,368 in the HCV-only group, compared to $73,547 in the HIV-HCV group (p < 0.0001). Pharmacy costs increased as a proportion of total costs for both groups, increasing after 2012 from 41% to 55% for HIV-HCV and from 19% to 34% for HCV-only.

Conclusion

The present study describes the total direct health care costs in HIV-HCV co-infected individuals and HCV-only patients in commercially insured health plans. Spending on pharmacy increased as a proportion of total health care costs in both groups. Further clinical and economic evaluations in HCV and/or HIV populations in the US should consider system-level factors related to insurance type when applying to the entire population.

Population level outcomes and cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C treatment pre- vs postkidney transplantation

Direct-acting antivirals approved for use in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) now exist. HCV-positive (HCV+) ESRD patients have the opportunity to decrease the waiting times for transplantation by accepting HCV-infected kidneys. The optimal timing for HCV treatment (pre- vs posttransplant) among kidney transplant candidates is unknown. Monte Carlo microsimulation of 100 000 candidates was used to examine the cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment pretransplant vs posttransplant by liver fibrosis stage and waiting time over a lifetime time horizon using 2 regimens approved for ESRD patients. Treatment pretransplant yielded higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with posttransplant treatment in all subgroups except those with Meta-analysis of Histological Data in Viral Hepatitis stage F0 (pretransplant: 5.7 QALYs vs posttransplant: 5.8 QALYs). However, treatment posttransplant was cost-saving due to decreased dialysis duration with the use of HCV-infected kidneys (pretransplant: $735 700 vs posttransplant: $682 400). Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000, treatment pretransplant was not cost-effective except for those with Meta-analysis of Histological Data in Viral Hepatitis stage F3 whose fibrosis progression was halted. If HCV+ candidates had access to HCV-infected donors and were transplanted ≥9 months sooner than HCV-negative candidates, treatment pretransplant was no longer cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $107 100). In conclusion, optimal timing of treatment depends on fibrosis stage and access to HCV+ kidneys but generally favors posttransplant HCV eradication.

Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review of model-based analyses

BACKGROUND

Decisions about which subgroup of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients should be treated with direct acting anti-viral agents (DAAs) have economic importance due to high drug prices. Treat-all DAA strategies for CHC have gained acceptance despite high drug acquisition costs. However, there are also costs associated with the surveillance of CHC to determine a subgroup of patients with significant impairment. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the modelling methods used and summarise results in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of both CHC treatment with DAAs and surveillance of liver disease.

METHODS

Electronic databases including Embase and Medline were searched from inception to May 2015. Eligible studies included models predicting costs and/or outcomes for interventions, surveillance, or management of people with CHC. Narrative and quantitative synthesis were conducted. Quality appraisal was conducted using validated checklists. The review was conducted following principles published by NHS Centre for Research and Dissemination.

RESULTS

Forty-one CEAs met the eligibility criteria for the review; 37 evaluated an intervention and four evaluated surveillance strategies for targeting DAA treatment to those likely to gain most benefit. Included studies were of variable quality mostly due to reporting omissions. Of the 37 CEAs, eight models that enabled comparative analysis were fully appraised and synthesized. These models provided non-unique cost-effectiveness estimates in a specific DAA comparison in a specific population defined in terms of genotype, prior treatment status, and presence or absence of cirrhosis. Marked heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness estimates was observed despite this stratification. Approximately half of the estimates suggested that DAAs were cost-effective considering a threshold of US$30,000 and 73% with threshold of US$50,000. Two models evaluating surveillance strategies suggested that treating all CHC patients regardless of the staging of liver disease could be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

CEAs of CHC treatments need to better account for variability in their estimates. This analysis suggested that there are still circumstances where DAAs are not cost-effective. Surveillance in place of a treat-all strategy may still need to be considered as an option for deploying DAAs, particularly where acquisition cost is at the limit of affordability for a given health system.

Is hepatitis C virus elimination possible among people living with HIV and what will it take to achieve it?

INTRODUCTION

The World Health Organization targets for hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination include a 90% reduction in new infections by 2030. Our objective is to review the modelling evidence and cost data surrounding feasibility of HCV elimination among people living with HIV (PLWH), and identify likely components for elimination. We also discuss the real-world experience of HCV direct acting antiviral (DAA) scale-up and elimination efforts in the Netherlands.

METHODS

We review modelling evidence of what intervention scale-up is required to achieve WHO HCV elimination targets among HIV-infected (HIV+) people who inject drugs (PWID) and men who have sex with men (MSM), review cost-effectiveness of HCV therapy among PLWH and discuss economic implications of elimination. We additionally use the real-world experience of DAA scale-up in the Netherlands to illustrate the promise and potential challenges of HCV elimination strategies in MSM. Finally, we summarize key components of the HCV elimination response among PWLH.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Modelling indicates HCV elimination among HIV+ MSM and PWID is potentially achievable but requires combination treatment and either harm reduction or behavioural risk reductions. Preliminary modelling indicates elimination among HIV+ PWID will require elimination efforts among PWID more broadly. Treatment for PLWH and high-risk populations (PWID and MSM) is cost-effective in high-income countries, but costs of DAAs remain a barrier to scale-up worldwide despite the potential low production price ($50 per 12 week course). In the Netherlands, universal DAA availability led to rapid uptake among HIV+ MSM in 2015/16, and a 50% reduction in acute HCV incidence among HIV+ MSM from 2014 to 2016 was observed. In addition to HCV treatment, elimination among PLWH globally also likely requires regular HCV testing, development of low-cost accurate HCV diagnostics, reduced costs of DAA therapy, broad treatment access without restrictions, close monitoring for HCV reinfection and retreatment, and harm reduction and/or behavioural interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Achieving WHO HCV Elimination targets is potentially achievable among HIV-infected populations. Among HIV+ PWID, it likely requires HCV treatment scale-up combined with harm reduction for both HIV+ and HIV- populations. Among HIV+ MSM, elimination likely requires both HCV treatment and behaviour risk reduction among the HIV+ MSM population, the latter of which to date has not been observed. Lower HCV diagnostic and treatment costs will be key to ensuring scale-up of HCV testing and treatment without restriction, enabling elimination.

Hepatitis C Treatment Regimens Are Cost-Effective: But Compared With What?

BACKGROUND

Numerous economic models have been published evaluating treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, but none provide a comprehensive comparison among new antiviral agents.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of all recommended therapies for treatment of genotypes 1 and 4 chronic HCV.

METHODS

Using data from clinical trials, observational analyses, and drug pricing databases, Markov decision models were developed for HCV genotypes 1 and 4 to compare all recommended drugs from the perspective of the third-party payer over a 5-, 10-, and 50-year time horizon. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted by assigning distributions for clinical cure, age entering the model, costs for each health state, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each health state in a Monte Carlo simulation of 10 000 repetitions of the model.

RESULTS

In the lifetime model for genotype 1, effects ranged from 18.08 to 18.40 QALYs and total costs ranged from $88 107 to $184 636. The lifetime model of genotype 4 treatments had a range of effects from 18.23 to 18.43 QALYs and total costs ranging from $87 063 to $127 637. Grazoprevir/elbasvir was the optimal strategy followed by velpatasvir/sofosbuvir as the second-best strategy in most simulations for both genotypes 1 and 4, with drug costs and efficacy of grazoprevir/elbasvir as the primary model drivers.

CONCLUSIONS

Grazoprevir/elbasvir was cost-effective compared with all strategies for genotypes 1 and 4. Effects for all strategies were similar with cost of drug in the initial year driving the results.

Modelling the impact of deferring HCV treatment on liver-related complications in HIV coinfected men who have sex with men

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hepatitis C (HCV) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in people who live with HIV. In many countries, access to direct acting antiviral agents to treat HCV is restricted to individuals with advanced liver disease (METAVIR stage F3 or F4). Our goal was to estimate the long term impact of deferring HCV treatment for men who have sex with men (MSM) who are coinfected with HIV and often have multiple risk factors for liver disease progression.

METHODS

We developed an individual-based model of liver disease progression in HIV/HCV coinfected MSM. We estimated liver-related morbidity and mortality as well as the median time spent with replicating HCV infection when individuals were treated in liver fibrosis stages F0, F1, F2, F3 or F4 on the METAVIR scale.

RESULTS

The percentage of individuals who died of liver-related complications was 2% if treatment was initiated in F0 or F1. It increased to 3% if treatment was deferred until F2, 7% if it was deferred until F3 and 22% if deferred until F4. The median time individuals spent with replicating HCV increased from 5years if treatment was initiated in F2 to almost 15years if it was deferred until F4.

CONCLUSIONS

Deferring HCV therapy until advanced liver fibrosis is established could increase liver-related morbidity and mortality in HIV/HCV coinfected individuals, and substantially prolong the time individuals spend with a replicating HCV infection.

The cost-effectiveness of treating triple coinfection with HIV, tuberculosis and hepatitis C virus

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating patients infected with HIV and simultaneously coinfected with tuberculosis (TB) and hepatitis C virus (HCV).

METHODS

A mathematical model for HIV coinfection with TB and HCV is introduced. The model was designed to incorporate parameters of control for the coverage of care, which makes it useful for performing cost-effectiveness analysis of public policies. A cost-effectiveness analysis of early medical care of patients with TB and HCV coinfection, with coverage of 0 (basal), 25, 50, 75 and 100%, was performed for the whole cohort of patients and a special analysis was performed in a selected population with triple infection.

RESULTS

The cost per resolved infection and the cost per year of life gained were found to be very cost-effective for the population with triple infection, for all different coverages.

CONCLUSIONS

It is known that treating patients with HIV who are coinfected with TB or HCV implies high cost and low efficacy, but it is possible that the population with triple infections could achieve important benefits in terms of years of life gained.

Systematic Review of Modelling Approaches for the Cost Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Treatment with Direct-Acting Antivirals

BACKGROUND

New direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are highly effective for hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment. However, their prices have been widely debated. Decision-analytic models can project the long-term value of HCV treatment. Therefore, understanding of the methods used in these models and how they could influence results is important.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to describe and systematically review the methodological approaches in published cost-effectiveness models of chronic HCV treatment with DAAs.

DATA SOURCES

We searched several electronic databases, including Medline, Embase and EconLit, from 2011 to 2015.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY

Study selection was performed by two reviewers independently. We included any cost-effectiveness analysis comparing DAAs with the old standard of care for HCV treatment. We excluded non-English-language studies and studies not reporting quality-adjusted life-years.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHOD

One reviewer collected data and assessed the quality of reporting, using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Another reviewer crosschecked the abstracted information. The development methods of the included studies were synthetized on the basis of good modelling practice recommendations.

RESULTS

Review of 304 citations revealed 36 cost-effectiveness analyses. The reporting quality scores of most articles were rated as acceptable, between 67 and 100 %. The majority of the studies were conducted in Europe (50 %), followed by the USA (44 %). Fifty-six percent of the 36 studies evaluated the cost effectiveness of HCV treatment in both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, 97 % included genotype 1 patients and 53 % evaluated the cost effectiveness of second-generation or oral DAAs in comparison with the previous standard of care or other DAAs. Twenty-one models defined health states in terms of METAVIR fibrosis scores. Only one study used a discrete-event simulation approach, and the remainder used state-transition models. The time horizons varied; however, 89 % of studies used a lifetime horizon. One study was conducted from a societal perspective. Thirty-three percent of studies did not conduct any model validation. We also noted that none of the studies modelled HCV treatment as a prevention strategy, 86 % of models did not consider the possibility of re-infection with HCV after successful treatment, 97 % of studies did not consider indirect economic benefits resulting from HCV treatment and none of the studies evaluating oral DAAs used real-world data.

LIMITATIONS

The search was limited by date (from 1 January 2011 to 8 September 2015) and was also limited to English-language and published reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Most modelling studies used a similar modelling structure and could have underestimated the value of HCV treatment. Future modelling efforts should consider the benefits of HCV treatment in preventing transmission, extra-hepatic and indirect economic benefits of HCV treatment, real-world cost-effectiveness analysis and cost effectiveness of HCV treatment in low- and middle-income countries.

Directly acting antivirals for hepatitis C virus arrive in HIV/hepatitis C virus co-infected patients: from 'mind the gap' to 'where's the gap?'

In patients living with HIV infection with hepatitis C (HCV) is common. HIV/HCV co-infection results in more rapid liver fibrosis progression than HCV alone and end-stage liver disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in co-infected patients. Historically, treatment outcomes with interferon based therapy in this group have been poor but with the advent of directly acting antiviral (DAA) drugs for HCV, rates of cure have improved dramatically. This article reviews recent evidence on the treatment of HCV in co-infected patients including the efficacy of new regimens and information on drug-drug interactions between DAAs and antiretroviral therapy. We also discuss the relationship between the pathogenesis of HIV and HCV infections, the treatment of acute hepatitis C and the current debate regarding the cost-effectiveness and affordability of DAAs.

Clinical impact of treatment timing for chronic hepatitis C infection: a decision model

Recent advances in the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have led to the availability of both highly efficacious interferon-containing and interferon-sparing regimens. However, the use of such therapies faces restrictions due to high costs. For patients who are medically eligible to receive interferon, the choice between the two will likely be impacted by preferences surrounding interferon, severity of disease, coverage policies and out-of-pocket costs. We developed a decision model to quantify the trade-offs between immediate, interferon-containing therapy and delayed, interferon-free therapy for patients with chronic, genotype 1 HCV infection. We projected the quality-adjusted life expectancy stratified by the presence or absence of cirrhosis for four strategies: (i) no treatment; (ii) immediate, one-time treatment with an interferon-containing regimen; (iii) immediate treatment as above with the opportunity for retreatment in patients who fail to achieve sustained virologic response with interferon-free therapy in 1 year; and (iv) delayed therapy with interferon-free therapy in 1 year. When compared to one-time immediate treatment with the interferon-containing regimen, delayed treatment with the interferon-free regimen in 1 year resulted in longer life expectancy, with a 0.2 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) increase in noncirrhotic patients, and a 1.1 QALY increase in patients with cirrhosis. This superiority in health benefits was lost when wait time for interferon-free therapy was greater than 3-3.2 years. In this modelling analysis, interferon-free therapy resulted in superior health benefits compared to immediate therapy with interferon until wait time exceeded 3-3.2 years. Such data can inform decision-making regarding treatment initiation for HCV as healthcare financing evolves.

The cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based regimens for treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 2 or 3 infection

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.

The lifetime medical cost savings from preventing HIV in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced HIV prevention interventions, such as preexposure prophylaxis for high-risk individuals, require substantial investments. We sought to estimate the medical cost saved by averting 1 HIV infection in the United States.

METHODS

We estimated lifetime medical costs in persons with and without HIV to determine the cost saved by preventing 1 HIV infection. We used a computer simulation model of HIV disease and treatment (CEPAC) to project CD4 cell count, antiretroviral treatment status, and mortality after HIV infection. Annual medical cost estimates for HIV-infected persons, adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and transmission risk group, were from the HIV Research Network (range, $1854-$4545/mo) and for HIV-uninfected persons were from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (range, $73-$628/mo). Results are reported as lifetime medical costs from the US health system perspective discounted at 3% (2012 USD).

RESULTS

The estimated discounted lifetime cost for persons who become HIV infected at age 35 is $326,500 (60% for antiretroviral medications, 15% for other medications, 25% nondrug costs). For individuals who remain uninfected but at high risk for infection, the discounted lifetime cost estimate is $96,700. The medical cost saved by avoiding 1 HIV infection is $229,800. The cost saved would reach $338,400 if all HIV-infected individuals presented early and remained in care. Cost savings are higher taking into account secondary infections avoided and lower if HIV infections are temporarily delayed rather than permanently avoided.

CONCLUSIONS

The economic value of HIV prevention in the United States is substantial given the high cost of HIV disease treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of rapid hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing and simultaneous rapid HCV and HIV testing in substance abuse treatment programs

AIMS

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rapid hepatitis C virus (HCV) and simultaneous HCV/HIV antibody testing in substance abuse treatment programs.

DESIGN

We used a decision analytic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of no HCV testing referral or offer, off-site HCV testing referral, on-site rapid HCV testing offer and on-site rapid HCV and HIV testing offer. Base case inputs included 11% undetected chronic HCV, 0.4% undetected HIV, 35% HCV co-infection among HIV-infected, 53% linked to HCV care after testing antibody-positive and 67% linked to HIV care. Disease outcomes were estimated from established computer simulation models of HCV [Hepatitis C Cost-Effectiveness (HEP-CE)] and HIV [Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC)].

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Data on test acceptance and costs were from a national randomized trial of HIV testing strategies conducted at 12 substance abuse treatment programs in the United States.

MEASUREMENTS

Lifetime costs (2011 US$) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) discounted at 3% annually; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

FINDINGS

On-site rapid HCV testing had an ICER of $18,300/QALY compared with no testing, and was more efficient than (dominated) off-site HCV testing referral. On-site rapid HCV and HIV testing had an ICER of $64,500/QALY compared with on-site rapid HCV testing alone. In one- and two-way sensitivity analyses, the ICER of on-site rapid HCV and HIV testing remained <$100,000/QALY, except when undetected HIV prevalence was <0.1% or when we assumed frequent HIV testing elsewhere. The ICER remained <$100,000/QALY in 91% of probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

On-site rapid hepatitis C virus and HIV testing in substance abuse treatment programs is cost-effective at a <$100,000/quality-adjusted life year threshold.