Cost-effectiveness of second-generation direct-acting antiviral agents in chronic HCV infection: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Our objectives were to review the economic modelling methods and cost-effectiveness of second-generation direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of chronic HCV infection.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in February 2017 using Scopus and OVID to review relevant publications between 2011 to present. Two independent reviewers screened potential papers.

RESULTS

The database search resulted in a total of 1,536 articles; after deduplication, title/abstract and full text screening, 67 studies were included for qualitative analysis. The vast majority of studies were conducted in high-income countries (n=59) and used Markov-based modelling techniques (n=60). Most of the analyses utilized long-term time horizons; 58 studies calculated lifetime costs and outcomes. The examined treatments were heterogenic among the studies; seven analyses did not directly evaluate treatments (just with screening or genotype testing). The examined treatments (n=60) were either dominant (23%), or cost-effective at base case (57%) or in given subgroups (18%). Only one (2%) study reported that the assessed treatment was not cost-effective with the given setting and price.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite their high initial therapeutic costs, second-generation direct-acting antiviral agents were found to be cost-effective to treat chronic HCV infection. Studies were predominantly conducted in higher income countries, although we have limited information on cost-effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries, where assessment of cost-effectiveness is even more essential due to more limited health-care resources and potentially higher public health burden due to unsafe medical interventions.

Economic Burden of Hepatitis C Infection

The economic burden of chronic hepatitis C might exceed $10 billion annually in the United States alone. This disease has a worldwide prevalence of up to 3%, making the global burden of the disease comparably tremendous. The cost of the disease includes direct medical expenses for its hepatic and extrahepatic manifestations, and also indirect costs incurred from impaired quality of life and the loss of work productivity. Recent emergence of treatment options that are not only highly effective and safe but also costly has emphasized the need to study the disease from the economic point of view.

Sofosbuvir plus simeprevir for the treatment of genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C: a review of evidence

Sofosbuvir (SOF) with simeprevir (SIM) combination was the first interferon-free regimen that reached optimal results in terms of sustained viral response (SVR). Areas covered: A systematic review of the scientific literature concerning the effects that the SOF/SIM combination had on hepatitis C genotype 1 patients yielded 771 references. After the revision process, four clinical trials and 15 observational studies met the inclusion criteria; in total, these studies involved 5,766 patients. The SVR ranged from 67% to 100% depending on the patients' viral subtype and cirrhosis status. Adverse effects were common, but treatment discontinuation related to drug toxicity occurred in less than 5% of cases. Expert commentary: The SOF/SIM combination exhibits efficacy and tolerability profiles that are similar to those of the other available interferon-free combinations used for non-cirrhotic genotype 1b patients. Meanwhile, for patients with advanced cirrhosis or genotype 1a, this approach cannot be considered a routine treatment option due to the unsatisfactory results.

Economic evaluation of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir for the treatment of chronic genotype 1 hepatitis c virus infection

OBJECTIVES

To estimate clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir ± ribavirin (OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV) compared with treatment regimens including pegylated interferon (PegIFN) for patients with chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

METHODS

An Excel spreadsheet Markov model tracking progression through stages of liver disease was developed. Costs and patient utilities for liver disease stages were taken from published studies. Rates of disease progression were based on studies of untreated HCV infection and long-term follow-up of those achieving sustained virologic response (SVR) after drug treatment. Impact of OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV and other drug regimens on progression was estimated through SVR rates from clinical trials. Analyses were performed for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients. Impact of alternative scenarios and input parameter uncertainty on the results were tested.

RESULTS

For genotype 1 treatment-naive HCV patients, for OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV, PegIFN + ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV), sofosbuvir + PegIFN/RBV, telaprevir + PegIFN/RBV, boceprevir + PegIFN/RBV, lifetime risk of decompensated liver disease was 5.6%, 18.9%, 7.4%, 11.7%, and 14.9%; hepatocellular carcinoma was 5.4%, 9.2%, 5.7%, 7.0%, and 7.4%; and death from liver disease was 8.7%, 22.2%, 10.4%, 14.8%, and 17.6%, respectively. Estimates of the cost-effectiveness of OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients indicated that it dominated all other regimens except PegIFN/RBV. Compared with PegIFN/RBV, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £13,864 and £10,258 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, respectively. The results were similar for alternative scenarios and uncertainty analyses.

LIMITATIONS

A mixed-treatment comparison for SVR rates for the different treatment regimens was not feasible, because many regimens did not have comparator arms; instead SVR rates were based on those from recent trials.

CONCLUSIONS

OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV is a cost-effective oral treatment regimen for chronic genotype 1 HCV infection compared with standard treatment regimens and is estimated to reduce the lifetime risks of advanced liver disease.

Effective but costly: How to tackle difficult trade-offs in evaluating health improving technologies in liver diseases

In the current context of rising health care costs and decreasing sustainability, it is becoming increasingly common to resort to decision analytical modeling and health economics evaluations. Decision analytic models are analytical tools that help decision makers to select the best choice between alternative health care interventions, taking into consideration the complexity of the disease, the socioeconomic context, and the relevant differences in outcomes. We present a brief overview of the use of decision analytical models in health economic evaluations and their applications in the area of liver diseases. The aim is to provide the reader with the basic elements to evaluate health economic analysis reports and to discuss some limitations of the current approaches, as highlighted by the case of the therapy of chronic hepatitis C. To serve its purpose, health economics evaluations must be able to do justice to medical innovation and the market while protecting patients and society and promoting fair access to treatment and its economic sustainability.

CONCLUSION

New approaches and methods able to include variables such as prevalence of the disease, budget impact, and sustainability into the cost-effectiveness analysis are needed to reach this goal. (Hepatology 2016;64:1331-1342).

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir-simeprevir regimens for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients with advanced fibrosis]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to measure the cost-effectiveness of the treatment with simeprevir and sofosbuvir in chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients with F3-F4 levels of fibrosis, according to the results of the COSMOS trial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Markov model was used to estimate the costs and clinical outcomes from the start of therapy. In the model, the progression was simulated alongside the different health states of the chronic liver disease associated with chronic hepatitis C using whole life as time-horizon.

RESULTS

The 12-weeks treatment schemes was below the threshold of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year. On the contrary, despite the 50% cost reduction, the 24-weeks regimen demonstrated a limited level of efficiency when compared with the willingness to pay used in the Spanish medical literature.

CONCLUSIONS

This finding would support the introduction of a flat rate in the price of drugs without taking into account the duration of treatment to ensure that treatment with 24 weeks was efficient.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir-based regimens for chronic hepatitis C

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.

Outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness of treating hepatitis C with direct acting antivirals

Hepatitis C is a global public health burden. Long-term consequences are the development of liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Introduction of different direct acting antivirals targeting the hepatitis C proteins has considerably increased rates of sustained viral response. First active substances introduced in 2011 were NS3/4A protease inhibitors telaprevir and boceprevir. In 2013/2014 the second generation of direct acting antivirals sofosbuvir, simeprevir, daclatasvir, ledipasvir and 3D therapy containing ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir followed. This review focuses on treatment outcomes and costs of introduced direct acting antivirals. We provide an overview on SVR-rates in clinical trials and clinical practice, treatment costs in different countries as well as results of cost-effectiveness analyses for different treatment strategies.

A cost utility analysis of simeprevir used with peginterferon + ribavirin in the management of genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service

INTRODUCTION

Triple therapy using a protease inhibitor (PI) with peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) is increasingly used in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The most recently introduced PI, simeprevir (SMV), offers high levels of viral eradication combined with a reduced overall duration of therapy. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of SMV + PR vs PR alone or in combination with telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC) in patients infected with genotype 1 HCV Method: A cost-utility model was constructed, incorporating two phases, capturing the efficacy of therapy in an initial treatment phase, followed by a long-term post-treatment Markov phase, capturing lifetime outcomes according to whether a sustained viral response (SVR) had been achieved on treatment. Dosage regimens were based on the EMA approved label for each treatment. SVR estimates and adverse event rates were derived from a mixed treatment comparison. Baseline characteristics were drawn from an analysis of a UK HCV data-set and clinician opinion. Health state transition probabilities, utilities, and health state costs were drawn from previously published economic analyses. The model considered direct health costs only, and the perspective was that of the UK National Health Service.

RESULTS

The model yielded an ICER for SMV + PR vs PR alone of £9725/QALY for treatment-naïve and £7819/QALY for treatment-experienced. Benefit was driven by increased likelihood of achieving SVR, with consequent long-term utility gains. SMV + PR dominated TVR + PR and BOC + PR in both patient groups. This principally reflected the QALY benefit of an increased likelihood of SVR with SMV, combined with lower overall drug costs, due to reduced mean treatment duration.

CONCLUSION

Compared to other currently licensed treatment options, SMV + PR represents a cost effective treatment option for patients with chronic genotype 1 HCV infection.