Boceprevir for Chronic Genotype 1 Hepatitis C Virus in the Current Health Care Setting in Greece: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Cost-effectiveness of switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide versus entecavir for chronic hepatitis B patients in Greece

Aim: This study assessed the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) to either tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) or entecavir (ETV) in a Greek chronic hepatitis B (CHB) population. Patients & methods: A Markov model from the perspective of a third-party payer in Greece quantified the health and economic benefits of switching from TDF to either TAF or ETV over a lifetime horizon. Results: Over a lifetime, patients who switch from TDF to TAF versus patients who switch from TDF to ETV had an overall lower incidence of compensated cirrhosis (0.4% lower), decompensated cirrhosis (0.04% lower) and hepatocellular carcinoma (0.25% lower). Chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease were also lower in patients who switch to TAF; major osteoporotic fractures were similar for both groups. While total costs were higher for switching from TDF to TAF versus TDF to ETV due to the higher cost of TAF, switching from TDF to TAF versus ETV was cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €17,113 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Switching from TDF to TAF in patients living with CHB is a cost effective strategy to reduce adverse liver disease outcomes, while improving bone- and renal-related safety outcomes.

Does a Standard Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Exist? The Case of Greece

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically review the use of cost-effectiveness (CE) threshold for evaluating pharmacological interventions in Greece.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and ScienceDirect was conducted between January 2009 and June 2022. The data of selected studies were extracted using a relevant form and consequently were synthesized. Qualitative variables were presented with relative frequencies (%) and quantitative variables with median and interquartile range (IQR).

RESULTS

From the 302 identified studies, 83 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized to oncology (26.5%) and a nononcology related (73.5%) based on drug treatment. The most frequently reported outcome associated with CE threshold was the "per quality-adjusted life-year gained." A total of 32.5% of the studies with a reported threshold did not specify the origin of the threshold. From the rest of studies, the vast majority (92.8%) adopted thresholds equal to 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, whereas the rest similar to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. The median CE threshold was differentiated between oncology (€51 000 [IQR €50 000-€60 000]) and nononcology studies (€34 000 [IQR €30 000-€36 000]; P < .001). In both type of studies, the median CE thresholds were not statistically significantly different among GDP, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and not specified approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Aligned with other countries where there is no standard CE threshold to promote efficient use of healthcare resources, the most prominent practice in Greece was found to be that of 1 to 3 times the GDP per capita irrespective of type of treatment or outcome studied.

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.

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.

Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents for Patients With Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 Infection Are Cost-Saving

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are effective in treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection, but their cost and value have been debated. We performed a systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses of DAAs, synthesized their results with updated drug prices, and calculated the maximum price at which DAA therapy for HCV genotype 1 infection is cost-effective (increased quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and increased cost that the society is willing to pay) and cost-saving (increased QALYs and decreased costs).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, EconLit, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Tufts University databases for cost-effectiveness analyses published from 2011 through 2015. Our analysis included cost effectiveness of DAAs versus previous standard-of-care regimens (peginterferon and ribavirin, boceprevir and telaprevir), or no treatment, performed for patients with HCV genotype 1 infection. We excluded studies that were not written in English or those that did not report QALYs. Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and treatment costs for each comparison were extracted; the threshold price was estimated for each analysis in which regimens were found to be cost-effective (ICER ≤$100,000/QALY) or cost-saving (ICER <$0), those that decreased costs and increased QALYs.

RESULTS

We identified 24 cost-effectiveness studies that reported 170 ICERs for combinations of 11 drugs, from 11 countries. Of those, 81 ICERs were determined for first-generation DAAs (boceprevir and telaprevir) and 89 ICERs were determined for second-generation DAAs (drugs approved after the first-generation DAAs) as a primary intervention. The median threshold prices at which first-generation and second-generation DAAs became cost-effective were estimated as $120,100 (interquartile range, $90,700-$176,800) and $227,200 (interquartile range, $142,800-$355,800), respectively. At the discounted price of $60,000, a total of 71% of the analyses found second-generation DAAs to be cost-saving and 22% to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review, we found treatment of HCV genotype 1 infection with second-generation DAAs to be cost-effective when they cost less than and $227,200; these drugs produced cost savings at current discounts.

Assessing the Effect of Potential Reductions in Non-Hepatic Mortality on the Estimated Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Treatment in Early Stages of Liver Disease

BACKGROUND

Most cost-effectiveness analyses of hepatitis C (HCV) therapy focus on the benefits of reducing liver-related morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to assess how cost-effectiveness estimates of HCV therapy can vary depending on assumptions regarding the potential impact of HCV therapy on non-hepatic mortality.

METHODS

We adapted a state-transition model to include potential effects of HCV therapy on non-hepatic mortality. We assumed successful treatment could reduce non-hepatic mortality by as little as 0 % to as much as 100 %. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed comparing immediate treatment versus delayed treatment and comparing immediate treatment versus non-treatment.

RESULTS

Comparing immediate treatment versus delayed treatment, when we included a 44 % reduction in non-hepatic mortality following successful HCV treatment, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by HCV treatment fell by 76 % (from US$314,100 to US$76,900) for patients with no fibrosis and by 43 % (from US$62,500 to US$35,800) for patients with moderate fibrosis. Comparing immediate treatment versus non-treatment, assuming a 44 % reduction in non-hepatic mortality following successful HCV treatment, the incremental cost per QALY gained by HCV treatment fell by 64 % (from US$186,700 to US$67,300) for patients with no fibrosis and by 27 % (from US$35,000 to US$25,500) for patients with moderate fibrosis.

CONCLUSION

Including reductions in non-hepatic mortality from HCV treatment can have substantial effects on the estimated cost-effectiveness of treatment.

Value of Treating All Stages of Chronic Hepatitis C: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical and Economic Evidence

INTRODUCTION

The goal of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treatment is to achieve a sustained virologic response (SVR). The new generation of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) offers 90-100% SVR rates. However, access to these treatments is generally limited to patients with advanced liver disease. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the clinical and economic benefits of achieving SVR and to better understand the full value of CHC treatment in all stages of liver disease.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases to identify articles examining the clinical, economic, and quality of life benefits associated with SVR. Articles were limited to those published in English language from January 2006 through January 2016. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients with CHC, (2) retrospective and prospective studies, (3) reporting of mortality, liver morbidity, extrahepatic manifestations (EHMs), and economic outcomes and, (4) availability of an abstract or full-text publication.

RESULTS

Overall this review identified 354 studies involving more than 500,000 CHC patients worldwide. Evidence from 38 studies (n = 73,861) shows a significant mortality benefit of achieving SVR in patients with all stages of fibrosis. Long-term studies with follow-up of 5-12 years suggest that, particularly among non-cirrhotic patients, there is a significant decrease in mortality in SVR versus non-SVR groups. Ninety-nine studies conducted in 235,891 CHC patients in all stages of fibrosis show that SVR reduces liver-related mortality, incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and decompensation. A total of 233 studies show that chronic HCV infection is associated with several serious EHMs, some of which can have high mortality. Evidence from four modeling studies shows that delaying treatment to CHC patient populations could significantly increase mortality, morbidity, and medical costs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a robust body of evidence demonstrating diverse sources of value from achieving SVR in all stages of liver disease. While access to treatment is generally limited to late-stage patients, less restrictive treatment strategies that target HCV eradication have the potential to abate the burdens of mortality, liver morbidity and extrahepatic manifestations, and the associated healthcare costs.

Efficacy and direct costs of chronic hepatitis C treatment with first generation NS3/4A protease inhibitors in a real life population

Introduction

Recent years have brought a significant advance in chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treatment that includes development of direct acting antivirals (DAA). Two of them, boceprevir (BOC) and telaprevir (TVR), were first approved for treatment of patients infected with CHC genotype 1 in combination with pegylated interferon (P) and ribavirin (R). Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and direct costs of BOC/PR and TVR/PR in a real life population.

Material and methods

The study included adult patients qualified for the CHC Therapeutic Programme treated with TVR/PR or BOC/PR. Treatment was continued for 24 or 48 weeks. Sustained virological response, treatment discontinuation due to adverse events and lack of virological response rates were compared.

Results

A total of 243 adult patients with CHC were included. TVR/PR and BOC/PR were administered in respectively 122 and 121 patients. Thirty-two patients (13%) were treatment-naïve, whereas liver cirrhosis/advanced fibrosis was observed in 138 patients (56.7%). Overall, 43.6% of patients achieved a sustained virologic response (SVR). In the BOC/PR group the SVR rate was significantly lower than in the TVR/PR group (33.1% vs. 54.1%; p = 0.00094). Lack of response to therapy was observed in 41.3% and 12.3% of patients receiving BOC and TVR, respectively (p < 0.00001). The direct cost of achieving SVR in one patient was 285 450 PLN with BOC and 185 757 PLN with TVR.

Conclusions

The very low treatment efficacy may be the result of inclusion criteria that allowed treatment of patients with advanced liver fibrosis/liver cirrhosis or previous treatment failure. Telaprevir seems to be significantly more potent against hepatitis C virus, with similar safety and tolerance.

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.