Cost-effectiveness of peginterferon alfa-2a (40kDa) plus ribavirin in patients with HIV and hepatitis C virus co-infection

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Genotype 1 Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Treatments in Patients Coinfected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the United States

INTRODUCTION

New treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) are highly effective in patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of treatments for genotype 1 (GT1) HCV in HIV-coinfected patients.

METHODS

A Markov model based on HCV natural history was used. The base-case analysis included both treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Alternatives were ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir, dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (3D ± R) for 12 or 24 weeks, sofosbuvir plus peginterferon and R (SOF + PR) for 12 weeks, SOF + R for 24 weeks, and no treatment (NT). A subgroup analysis restricted to treatment-naïve, non-cirrhotic patients compared 3D ± R for 12 weeks to SOF plus ledipasvir (LDV) for 12 weeks and NT. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes were measured over a lifetime horizon and included rates of compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related death, total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

In the base-case, SOF + R was dominated by both SOF + PR and 3D ± R. Compared to SOF + PR, 3D ± R had an ICER of $45,581. The lifetime rates of liver morbidity and mortality were lower among those treated with 3D ± R compared to SOF + PR, SOF + R, or NT. In the subgroup analysis, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY (ICER $27,496). SOF/LDV had an ICER of $104,489 per QALY gained compared to 3D ± R.

CONCLUSION

In the GT1 HCV population coinfected with HIV, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT, SOF + R, and SOF + PR. In the treatment-naïve sub-population, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT and SOF/LDV.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir plus peginterferon/ribavirin in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection

BACKGROUND

Sofosbuvir, an oral NS5B nucleotide polymerase inhibitor, is indicated for the treatment of patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV).

AIM

To evaluate the long-term health economic outcomes of sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon alfa/ribavirin (pegIFN/RBV) compared with current treatments in patients infected with HCV genotype 1 in the US.

METHODS

A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to estimate health outcomes, number needed to treat and short-term and long-term economic outcomes, including incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost per sustained virological response (SVR), for several sofosbuvir-comparator regimen pairings for a cohort of 10 000 patients. It considered three patient cohorts: treatment-naïve, treatment-experienced and treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co-infected. Subgroup analyses were conducted for treatment-naïve patients with and without cirrhosis.

RESULTS

Reductions in the incidence of new cases of liver-disease complications with sofosbuvir + pegIFN/RBV compared with pegIFN/RBV, boceprevir + pegIFN/RBV, telaprevir + pegIFN/RBV and simeprevir + pegIFN/RBV were 64-82%, 50-68%, 43-58% and 33-56%, respectively. Sofosbuvir + pegIFN/RBV was typically associated with the lowest 1-year cost per SVR. When considering the lifetime incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, sofosbuvir + pegIFN/RBV was the most cost-effective treatment option assessed. Sofosbuvir + pegIFN/RBV generally dominated (less costly and more effective than) boceprevir + pegIFN/RBV, telaprevir + pegIFN/RBV and simeprevir + pegIFN/RBV.

CONCLUSION

Sofosbuvir + pegIFN/RBV yields more favourable future health and economic outcomes than current treatment regimens for patients across all levels of treatment experience and cirrhosis stage, as well as for individuals with or without HIV co-infection.

Cost-effectiveness of Telaprevir combination therapy for chronic hepatitis C

Objective

To explore the expected long-term health and economic outcomes of telaprevir (TVR) plus peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin (PR), a regimen that demonstrated substantially increased sustained virologic response (SVR) compared with PR alone in adults with chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) and compensated liver disease in the Phase III studies ADVANCE (treatment-naïve patients) and REALIZE (relapsers, partial responders, and null responders to previous PR treatment).

Study Design

A decision-analytic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of TVR+PR vs. PR in the United States (US).

Methods

Patients first moved through the 72-week decision-tree treatment phase of the model and then entered the cyclic Markov post-treatment phase. Clinical data (patient characteristics, SVR rates, and adverse event rates and durations) were obtained from ADVANCE and REALIZE. Health-state transition probabilities, drug and other costs (in 2012/2013 US dollars), and utility values were obtained from the trials, published studies, and publicly available sources. Outcomes were discounted at 3% per year.

Results

Regardless of treatment history, patients receiving TVR+PR were projected to experience fewer liver-disease complications, more life-years, and more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than patients receiving PR. In prior relapsers, TVR+PR was dominant, with lower total medical costs and more QALYs. For the other patient subgroups, incremental costs per QALY gained were between $16,778 (treatment-naïve patients) and $34,279 (prior null responders). Extensive sensitivity analyses confirmed robust model results.

Conclusions

At standard willingness-to-pay thresholds, TVR+PR represents a cost-effective treatment option compared with PR alone for patients with chronic genotype 1 HCV and compensated liver disease in the US. Future analyses are needed to compare TVR+PR with all existing HCV treatment options.

Modeling the impact of early antiretroviral therapy for adults coinfected with HIV and hepatitis B or C in South Africa

OBJECTIVE

There has been discussion about whether individuals coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) or hepatitis B virus (HBV) (∼30% of all people living with HIV) should be prioritized for early HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART). We assess the relative benefits of providing ART at CD4 count below 500  cells/μl or immediate ART to HCV/HIV or HBV/HIV-coinfected adults compared with HIV-monoinfected adults. We evaluate individual outcomes (HIV/liver disease progression) and preventive benefits in a generalized HIV epidemic setting.

METHODS

We modeled disease progression for HIV-monoinfected, HBV/HIV-coinfected, and HCV/HIV-coinfected adults for differing ART eligibility thresholds (CD4 <350  cells/μl, CD4 <500  cells/μl, immediate ART eligibility upon infection). We report disability-adjusted life-years averted per 100 person-years on ART (DALYaverted/100PYonART) as a measure of the health benefits generated from incremental changes in ART eligibility. Sensitivity analyses explored impact on sexual HIV and vertical HIV, HCV, and HBV transmission.

RESULTS

For HBV/HIV-coinfected adults, a switch to ART initiation at CD4 count below 500  cells/μl from CD4 below 350  cells/μl generates 9% greater health benefits per year on ART (48 DALYaverted/100PYonART) than for HIV-monoinfected adults (44 DALYaverted/100PYonART). Additionally, ART at CD4 below 500  cells/μl could prevent 25% and 32% of vertical transmissions of HIV and HBV, respectively. For HCV/HIV-coinfected adults, ART at CD4 below 500  cells/μl generates 10% fewer health benefits (40 DALYaverted/100PYonART) than for HIV monoinfection, unless ART reduces progression to cirrhosis by more than 70% (33% in base-case).

CONCLUSIONS

The additional therapeutic benefits of ART for HBV-related liver disease results in ART generating more health benefits among HBV/HIV-coinfected adults than HIV-monoinfected individuals, whereas less health benefits are generated amongst HCV/HIV coinfection in a generalized HIV epidemic setting.

The cost offsets and cost-effectiveness associated with pegylated drugs: a review of the literature

Pegylation (PEG) is used as both a drug-delivery and a drug-modification technology in ten drugs approved by the US FDA. Benefits of PEG drugs can include increased plasma half-life, longer absorption, improved tumor targeting and less antigenicity and immunogenicity. Clinical benefits of PEG drugs over non-PEG drugs may include reduced administration, improved efficacy, improved tolerability, and decreased severity and incidence of adverse events. This study reviews 37 economic literature publications featuring PEG drugs versus non-PEG versions. PEG drugs showed some reductions in overall costs resulting from various offsets including fewer administrations, lower adverse event treatment costs, reduced disease complication costs or reduced inpatient/outpatient costs. Of the 18 cost-effectiveness studies reviewed, 17 of them found PEG drugs to be cost effective versus the non-PEG drugs. Cost offsets and cost-effectiveness of PEG drugs have been demonstrated in multiple studies across various therapies, indications and country settings, and the results have been found to be stable when key parameters were varied in analyses. Further studies are needed to assess the potential for cost savings and cost-effectiveness for new PEG therapies in development.

Cost effectiveness of hepatitis C-related interventions targeting substance users and other high-risk groups: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In developed countries, injection drug users have the highest prevalence and incidence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Clinicians and policy makers have several options for reducing morbidity and mortality related to HCV infection, including preventing new infections, screening high-risk populations, and optimizing uptake and delivery of antiviral therapy. Cost-effectiveness analyses provide an estimate of the value for money associated with adopting healthcare interventions. Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of hepatitis C interventions (prevention, screening, treatment) targeting substance users and other groups with a high proportion of substance users.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HealthSTAR and EconLit, and the grey literature. Studies were critically appraised using the Drummond and Jefferson, Neumann et al. and Philips et al. checklists. We developed and applied a quality appraisal instrument specific to cost-effectiveness analyses of HCV interventions. In addition, we summarized cost-effectiveness estimates using a single currency and year ($US, year 2009 values).

RESULTS

Twenty-one economic evaluations were included, which addressed prevention (three), screening (ten) and treatment (eight). The quality of the analyses varied greatly. A significant proportion did not incorporate important aspects of HCV natural history, disease costs and antiviral therapy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (less costly and more effective) to $US603,352 per QALY. However, many ICERs were less than $US100,000 per QALY. Screening and treatment interventions involving pegylated interferon and ribavirin were generally cost effective at the $US100,000 per QALY threshold, with the exception of some subgroups, such as immune compromised patients with genotype 1 infections.

CONCLUSIONS

No clear consensus emerged from the studies demonstrating that prevention, screening or treatment provides better value for money as each approach can be economically attractive in certain subgroups. More high-quality economic evaluations of preventing, identifying and treating HCV infection in substance users are needed.

A literature review of reporting standards of HIV progression models

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review of HIV progression models to identify the mathematical structures used, the main research questions and key model aspects in terms of quality and robustness.

METHODS

We searched for articles published before February 2009 that described models of HIV progression in humans. We included two strategies of search with and without MeSH terms. We classified the models by their mathematical structure and research question. We created a checklist of desirable features of the models, reviewed and classified the articles to inform our conclusions.

RESULTS

Among 3491 articles found, 93 met the inclusion criteria. Among the selected articles, 60 used transition models, 25 applied differential equations, and eight had other structures. We did not find a relation between the type of question explored and the modeling method used. None of the studies complied with the complete set of items in the checklist, but 6.5% cover at least 90% of them.

CONCLUSION

There is an enormous heterogeneity of HIV modeling exercises in terms of methods used and topics addressed, as well as in the presentation of key aspects of the articles in terms of quality and robustness.

Antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C in patients with human immunodeficiency virus

BACKGROUND

Antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C may be less effective if patients are co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C in patients with HIV.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified through manual and electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded. The last search was May 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing at least 12 weeks of any anti-HCV treatment versus another treatment regimen or no treatment. Included patients had chronic hepatitis C and stable HIV irrespective of previous antiviral therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were done in duplicate. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included. None of the included 2269 patients were previously treated for chronic hepatitis C. Peginterferon (either 2a, 180 microgram, or 2b, 1.5 microgram/kg, once weekly) plus ribavirin was more effective in achieving end of treatment and sustained virological response compared with interferon plus ribavirin (5 trials, 1340 patients) or peginterferon (2 trials, 714 patients). The benefit of peginterferon plus ribavirin was seen irrespective of HCV genotype although patients with genotype 1 or 4 had lower response rates (27%) than patients with genotype 2 or 3 (56%). The remaining trials compared different treatment regimens in patients who were treatment naive or had no virological response after three months of treatment, but overall they had not enough power to show any effect of increasing the dose of interferon or adding both amantadine or ribavirin. The overall mortality was 23/2111 patients with no significant differences between treatment regimens. Treatment increased the risk of adverse events including anaemia and flu-like symptoms, and several serious adverse events occurred including fatal lactic acidosis, liver failure, and suicide due to depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Peginterferon plus ribavirin may be considered a treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C and stable HIV who have not received treatment for hepatitis C as the intervention may clear the blood of HCV RNA. Supporting evidence comes mainly from the analysis of this non-validated surrogate outcome assessed in comparisons against other antiviral treatments. There is no evidence on treatment of patients who have relapsed or did not respond to previous therapy. Careful monitoring of adverse events is warranted.

Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment in hepatitis C

We systematically reviewed the evidence for long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment in patients with chronic hepatitis C. We performed a systematic literature search on the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of AVT in hepatitis C (1990-March 2007), and included health technology assessment (HTA) reports, systematic reviews, long-term clinical trials, economic studies conducted alongside clinical trials and decision-analytic modelling studies. All costs were converted to 2005euro. Antiviral therapy with peginterferon plus ribavirin in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis C was the most effective (3.6-4.7 life years gained [LYG]) treatment and was reasonably cost-effective (cost-saving to 84 700euro/quality adjusted life years [QALY]) when compared to interferon plus ribavirin. Some results also suggest cost-effectiveness (below 8400euro/(QALY) of re-treatment in nonresponders/relapsers. Results for patients with persistently normal alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels or with special co-morbidities (e.g. HIV) or risk profiles were rare. We conclude that antiviral therapy may prolong life, improve long-term health-related quality-of-life and be reasonably cost-effective in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis C as well as in former relapsers/nonresponders. Further research is needed in patients with specific co-morbidities or risk profiles.

Bias in Markov models of disease

We examine bias in Markov models of diseases, including both chronic and infectious diseases. We consider two common types of Markov disease models: ones where disease progression changes by severity of disease, and ones where progression of disease changes in time or by age. We find sufficient conditions for bias to exist in models with aggregated transition probabilities when compared to models with state/time dependent transition probabilities. We also find that when aggregating data to compute transition probabilities, bias increases with the degree of data aggregation. We illustrate by examining bias in Markov models of Hepatitis C, Alzheimer's disease, and lung cancer using medical data and find that the bias is significant depending on the method used to aggregate the data. A key implication is that by not incorporating state/time dependent transition probabilities, studies that use Markov models of diseases may be significantly overestimating or underestimating disease progression. This could potentially result in incorrect recommendations from cost-effectiveness studies and incorrect disease burden forecasts.

Management complexities of HIV/hepatitis C virus coinfection in the twenty-first century

Because of shared routes of transmission, hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection is common among HIV-infected persons. Because of the effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy, chronic HCV has now emerged as a major cause of morbidity and mortality in this population. Because chronic HCV is highly prevalent among HIV-infected patients and has a rapid disease progression, antiviral therapy with pegylated interferon plus ribavirin is critical for the long-term survival of HIV/HCV-coinfected patients. In this article, the authors review the (1) epidemiology of HCV among HIV-infected individuals, (2) effect of HIV on the natural history of chronic HCV, (3) impact of antiretroviral therapy on HCV coinfection, and (4) management of chronic HCV in the HIV-infected person.

Management of HIV/hepatitis C virus-coinfected patient non-responders to hepatitis C virus antiviral therapy and relapsers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To examine recent developments in the management of HIV/hepatitis C virus-coinfected patients who relapsed or who responded poorly to initial therapy, with particular emphasis on peginterferon plus ribavirin.

RECENT FINDINGS

End-stage liver disease is the first cause of non-AIDS-related mortality in patients on antiretroviral therapy. A pool analysis of recent studies suggested that only 33% of HIV/hepatitis C virus-coinfected patients will achieve sustained virological response with peginterferon plus ribavirin. A substudy of the APRICOT trial shows that this strategy will benefit liver histology even in non-responding patients. The management of side effects is important and, according to a recent study, erythropoietin can improve clinical outcomes of hepatitis C virus therapy, although no direct association between response and the control of haematological toxicity was demonstrated. Patients who did not clear hepatitis C virus RNA with a slow virological response to previous courses of peginterferon and ribavirin might benefit from prolonging therapy to up to 72 weeks.

SUMMARY

Re-treatment strategies in non-responders to previous interferon-based therapies and relapsers should consider the previous virological response profile and ensure that treatment-related toxicity is controlled to avoid dose reductions or premature treatment interruptions. Further studies are needed to optimize therapeutic regimens.

Controversies in and challenges to our understanding of hepatitis C

Discovered in 1989, the hepatitis C virus (HCV) continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality world-wide despite a huge research commitment to defining and understanding the virus and the disease it causes. This paper discusses a number of areas where progress in the management of the HCV have not kept pace with the scientific understanding of the HCV. It is suggested that in the fields of HCV prevention and providing access to treatment, practice falls short of what could be achieved. The role of alcohol in the pathogenesis of HCV liver injury is discussed. Discrimination against those with HCV infection and particularly those in prison settings fails to match good clinical practice. The complicated processes of sharing information between specialty groups is also discussed in an attempt to optimise knowledge dissemination in this field.