Cost-Effectiveness of Elbasvir/Grazoprevir Versus Daclatasvir Plus Asunaprevir in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1b Infection in China

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pan-Genotypic Sofosbuvir-Based Regimens for Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C Genotype 1 Infection in China

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 is the most prevalent HCV infection in China. Sofosbuvir-based direct antiviral agent (DAA) regimens are the current mainstays of treatment. Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) regimens became reimbursable in China in 2020. Thus, this study aimed to identify the optimal SOF-based regimen and to inform efficient use of healthcare resources by optimizing DAA use in treating HCV genotype 1. Methods and Models: A modeling-based cost-utility analysis was conducted from the payer's perspective targeting adult Chinese patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. Direct medical costs and health utilities were inputted into a Markov model to simulate lifetime experiences of chronically infected HCV patients after receiving SOF/LDV, SOF/VEL or the traditional strategy of pegylated interferon (pegIFN) + ribavirin (RBV). Discounted lifetime cost and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed and compared to generate the incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR). An ICUR below the threshold of 31,500 $/QALY suggests cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of model findings. Results: Both SOF/LDV and SOF/VEL regimens were dominant to the pegIFN + RBV regimen by creating more QALYs and incurring less cost. SOF/LDV produced 0.542 more QALYs but cost $10,390 less than pegIFN + RBV. Relative to SOF/LDV, SOF/VEL had an ICUR of 168,239 $/QALY which did not meet the cost-effectiveness standard. Therefore SOF/LDV was the optimal strategy. These findings were robust to linear and random variations of model parameters. However, reducing the SOF/VEL price by 40% would make this regimen the most cost-effective option. Conclusions: SOF/LDV was found to be the most cost-effective treatment, and SOF/VEL was also economically dominant to pegIFN + RBV. These findings indicated that replacing pegIFN + RBV with DAA regimens could be a promising strategy.

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%.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Oral Direct-Acting Antivirals for Chinese Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

All oral direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have shown excellent efficacy and safety in Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC). However, the cost of DAAs used to be expensive; therefore, large numbers of patients had no access to DAAs in China. Recently, prices have been greatly reduced. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) in Chinese CHC patients stratified by hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype (GT), cirrhosis status, and treatment history.

METHODS

On the basis of a Chinese healthcare perspective, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the lifetime costs and health outcomes of patients treated with different DAA regimens. Chinese-specific clinical, cost, and utility inputs were obtained or calculated from published sources and expert opinions. Costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported as primary outcomes. Base-case analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

At a willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$30,081/QALY (calculated by three times the GDP per capita in China), SOF/VEL was cost-effective in patients with HCV GT 1, 3, and 6 infections, and the probabilities that SOF/VEL was cost-effective were 9.7-75.7%, 39.1-63.9%, and 35.6-88.0%, respectively. For GT2 patients, noncirrhotic patients, treatment-naïve patients, and treatment-experienced patients, LDV/SOF was the most cost-effective regimen, and the probabilities of cost-effectiveness for each of these groups was 92.1-99.8%, 89.9-99.0%, 61.6-91.2%, and 99.3-100.0%, respectively below the WTP threshold. The GLE/PIB regimen (12-week duration) was the most cost-effective in cirrhotic patients, whereas the probability of its cost-effectiveness varied with that of EBR/GZR (4.1-93.8% versus 6.2-93.3%) below the WTP threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, SOF/VEL and LDV/SOF regimens are more likely to be cost-effective among various subgroups of Chinese patients with CHC.

Cost-utility of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir versus other direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1b infection in China

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) compared with other direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in Chinese patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV).

DESIGN

A Markov model was developed to estimate the disease progression of patients with HCV over a lifetime horizon from the healthcare system perspective. Efficacy, clinical inputs and utilities were derived from the published literature. Drug costs were from the market price survey, and health costs for Markov health states were sourced from a Chinese study. Costs and utilities were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the impact of input parameters on the results.

INTERVENTIONS

SOF/VEL was compared with sofosbuvir+ribavirin (SR), sofosbuvir+dasabuvir (SD), daclatasvir+asunaprevir (DCV/ASV), ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir+dasabuvir (3D) and elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs).

RESULTS

SOF/VEL was economically dominant over SR and SD. However, 3D was economically dominant compared with SOF/VEL. Compared with DCV/ASV, SOF/VEL was cost-effective with the ICUR of US$1522 per QALY. Compared with EBR/GZR, it was not cost-effective with the ICUR of US$369 627 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that reducing the cost of SOF/VEL to the lower value of CI resulted in dominance over EBR/GZR and 3D. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 3D was cost-effective in 100% of iterations in patients with genotype (GT) 1b and SOF/VEL was not cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with other oral DAA agents, SOF/VEL treatment was not the most cost-effectiveness option for patients with chronic HCV GT1b in China. Lower the price of SOF/VEL will make it cost-effective while simplifying treatment and achieving the goal of HCV elimination.

Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Status and Barriers among Patients in Methadone Maintenance Treatment Clinics in Guangdong Province, China: A Cross-Sectional, Observational Study

We aimed to evaluate the status and barriers related to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment among Chinese methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) clients, and the willingness and barriers of patients to accept directly observed treatment (DOT) service and oral direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). We conducted a cross-sectional survey from July to October 2017 in Guangdong Province, China, involving 678 HCV antibody-positive MMT patients. If they reported being infected with HCV, then their HCV treatment experience, willingness to use DOT and DAAs, along with any barriers, were collected. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the correlates of initiating HCV treatment. Among those reporting HCV infection (54%, 366/678), 39% (144/366) initiated treatment; however, 38% (55/144) interrupted and 55% (79/135) delayed treatment for 15 months. Seventy-five percent (273/366) and 53% (195/366) were willing to use DOT and DAAs, respectively. Unaffordable medical costs and insignificant symptoms were the major barriers to HCV treatment and accepting DOT or DAAs. The lack of a stable residence, being a woman, and having ever injected drugs were all associated with a low probability of initiating treatment (p < 0.05). This study highlights a limited uptake of HCV treatment among MMT patients, and a need to strengthen the popularity of DOT and DAAs and integrate them into Chinese MMT clinics.

Hepatitis C virus cure with direct acting antivirals: Clinical, economic, societal and patient value for China

About 10 million people in China are infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), with the seroprevalence of anti-HCV in the general population estimated at 0.6%. Delaying effective treatment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with liver disease progression, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related mortality. The extrahepatic manifestations of CHC further add to the disease burden of patients. Managing CHC-related advanced liver diseases and systemic manifestations are costly for both the healthcare system and society. Loss of work productivity due to reduced well-being and quality of life in CHC patients further compounds the economic burden of the disease. Traditionally, pegylated-interferon plus ribavirin (PR) was the standard of care. However, a substantial number of patients are ineligible for PR treatment, and only 40%-75% achieved sustained virologic response. Furthermore, PR is associated with impairment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), high rates of adverse events, and poor adherence. With the advent of direct acting antivirals (DAAs), the treatment of CHC patients has been revolutionized. DAAs have broader eligible patient populations, higher efficacy, better PRO profiles, fewer adverse events, and better adherence rates, thereby making it possible to cure a large proportion of all CHC patients. This article aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation on the value of effective, curative hepatitis C treatment from the clinical, economic, societal, and patient experience perspectives, with a focus on recent data from China, supplemented with other Asian and international experiences where China data are not available.