Cost-Utility of Elbasvir/Grazoprevir in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Genotype 1 Infection

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-utility Analysis of Second-generation Direct-acting Antivirals for Hepatitis C

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) can lead to increased mortality, disability, and liver transplantation if left untreated, and it is associated with a possible increase in disease burden in the future, all of which would surely have a significant impact on the health system. New antiviral regimens are effective in the treatment of the disease yet expensive. Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of three medication regimens, namely, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), velpatasvir/sofosbuvir, and daclatasvir/sofosbuvir (DCV/SOF) for HCV patients with genotype 1 in Iran. Methods: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to predict the costs and outcomes of the three mentioned medication therapy strategies. The final outcome of the study was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which was obtained using the previously published studies. The study was conducted from the perspective of the Health Ministry; therefore, only direct medical costs were estimated. The results were provided as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY. Ultimately, the one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to measure the strength of study results. Results: The results showed that the QALYs for LDV/SOF, DCV/SOF, and VEL/SOF were 13.25, 13.94, and 14.61, and the costs were 4,807, 7,716, and 4,546$, respectively. The VEL/SOF regimen had lower costs and higher effectiveness than the LDV/SOF and DCV/SOF regimens, making it a dominant strategy. The tornado diagram results showed that the study results had the highest sensitivity to chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and compensated cirrhosis (CC) state costs. Moreover, the scatter plots showed that the VEL/SOF was the dominant therapeutic strategy in 73% of the simulations compared to LDV/SOF and 66% of the simulations compared to DCV/SOF; moreover, it was in the acceptable region in 92% of the simulations and below the threshold. Therefore, it was considered the most cost-effective strategy. Moreover, the results showed that DCV/SOF was in the acceptable region below the threshold in 69% of the simulations compared to LDV/SOF. Therefore, the DCV/SOF regimen was more cost-effective than LDV/SOF. Conclusions: According to the present study results, it is suggested that the VEL/SOF regimen be used as the first line of therapy in patients with HCV genotype 1. Moreover, DCV/SOF can be the second-line medication regimen.

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 All-Oral Direct-Acting Antiviral Regimens for the Treatment of Genotype 1 Chronic Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Patients in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are entering the hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment landscape in Hong Kong, prompting the need for cost-effectiveness evaluations of these interventions to enable optimal use of healthcare resources.

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of DAAs to standard-of-care pegylated interferon plus ribavirin (RBV) in treatment-naïve patients without significant liver fibrosis and to compare different DAAs in patients who are treatment-experienced and/or have advanced liver disease.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to evaluate cost-effectiveness over a lifetime time horizon from the payer perspective. The target population was treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced HCV genotype 1 patients, stratified by degree of liver fibrosis. The model consists of 16 health states encompassing METAVIR fibrosis score (F0-F4), treatment success or failure, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplant, and liver-related death. The proportions of patients achieving sustained virologic response were obtained from clinical trials. Other inputs were obtained from published and local data. The primary outcome was incremental cost-utility ratio for each DAA versus pegylated interferon + ribavirin and among different DAAs.

RESULTS

In treatment-naïve F0-2 HCV patients, all DAAs were cost-effective in genotype 1a and daclatasvir + asunaprevir, elbasvir/grazoprevir, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir were cost-effective compared to pegylated interferon + ribavirin in genotype 1b. In genotypes 1a and 1b, treatment-experienced patients, and F3-4 patients, elbasvir/grazoprevir was the least costly DAA and economically dominant over most other DAAs.

CONCLUSIONS

DAAs can be a cost-effective option for the treatment of genotype 1 HCV patients in Hong Kong, and elbasvir/grazoprevir is cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of a "treat-all" strategy using Direct-Acting Antivirals (DAAs) for Japanese patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 at different fibrosis stages

Aim

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic strategies initiated at different stages of liver fibrosis using three direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), sofosbuvir-ledipasvir (SL), glecaprevir-pibrentasvir (GP), and elbasvir plus grazoprevir (E/G), for Japanese patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) genotype 1.

Methods

We created an analytical decision model reflecting the progression of liver fibrosis stages to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative therapeutic strategies applied at different fibrosis stages. We compared six treatment strategies: treating all patients regardless of fibrosis stage (TA), treating individual patients with one of four treatments starting at four respective stages of liver fibrosis progression (F1S: withholding treatment at stage F0 and starting treatment from stage F1 or higher, and three successive options, F2S, F3S, and F4S), and administering no antiviral treatment (NoRx). We adopted a lifetime horizon and Japanese health insurance payers’ perspective.

Results

The base case analysis showed that the incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain of TA by SL, GP, and E/G compared with the strategies of starting treatments for patients with the advanced fibrosis stage, F2S, varied from 0.32 to 0.33, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were US$24,320, US$18,160 and US$17,410 per QALY, respectively. On the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, TA was most likely to be cost-effective, with the three DAAs at the willingness to pay thresholds of US$50,000.

Conclusions

Our results suggested that administration of DAA treatment for all Japanese patients with genotype 1 CHC regardless of their liver fibrosis stage would be cost-effective under ordinary conditions.

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.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of pan-genotypic Sofosbuvir-Velpatasvir combination versus genotype dependent directly acting anti-viral drugs for treatment of hepatitis C patients in the universal coverage scheme of Punjab state in India

Background

We undertook this study to assess the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained with the use of pan-genotypic sofosbuvir (SOF) + velpatasvir (VEL) for HCV patients, as compared to the current treatment regimen under the universal free treatment scheme in Punjab state.

Methodology

A Markov model depicting natural history of HCV was developed to simulate the progression of disease. Three scenarios were compared: I (Current Regimen)—use of SOF + daclatasvir (DCV) for non-cirrhotic patients and ledipasvir (LDV) or DCV with SOF ± ribavirin (RBV) according to the genotype for cirrhotic patients; II—use of SOF + DCV for non-cirrhotic patients and use of SOF+VEL for compensated cirrhotic patients (with RBV in decompensated cirrhosis patients) and III—use of SOF+VEL for both non-cirrhotic and compensated cirrhotic patients (with RBV in decompensated cirrhosis patients). The lifetime costs, life-years and QALYs were assessed for each scenario, using a societal perspective. All the future costs and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. Finally, the incremental cost per QALY gained was computed for each of scenario II and III, as compared to scenario I and for scenario III as compared to II. In addition, we evaluated the lifetime costs and QALYs among HCV patients for each of scenario I, II and III against the counterfactual of ‘no universal free treatment scheme’ scenario which involves patients purchasing care in routine setting of from public and private sector.

Results

Each of the scenarios I, II and III dominate over the no universal free treatment scheme scenario, i.e. have greater QALYs and lesser costs. The use of SOF+VEL only for cirrhotic patients (scenario II) increases QALYs by 0.28 (0.03 to 0.71) per person, and decreases the cost by ₹ 5,946 (₹ 1,198 to ₹ 14,174) per patient, when compared to scenario I. Compared to scenario I, scenario III leads to an increase in QALYs by 0.44 (0.14 to 1.01) per person, and is cost-neutral. While the mean cost difference between scenario III and I is—₹ 2,676 per patient, it ranges from a cost saving of ₹ 14,835 to incurring an extra cost of ₹ 3,456 per patient. For scenario III as compared II, QALYs increase by 0.16 (0.03 to 0.36) per person as well as costs by ₹ 3,086 per patient which ranges from a cost saving of ₹ 1,264 to incurring an extra cost of ₹ 6,344. Shift to scenario II and III increases the program budget by 5.5% and 60% respectively.

Conclusion

Overall, the use of SOF+VEL is highly recommended for the treatment of HCV infection. In comparison to the current practice (scenario I), scenario II is a dominant option. Scenario III is cost-effective as compared to scenario II at a threshold of one-time GDP per capita. If budget is an important constraint, velpatasvir should be given to HCV infected cirrhotic patients. However, if no budget constraint, universal use of velpatasvir for HCV treatment is recommended.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Shortened Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment in Genotype 1 Noncirrhotic Treatment-Naive Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus

BACKGROUND

Direct-acting antivirals are successful in curing hepatitis C virus infection in more than 95% of patients treated for 12 weeks, but they are expensive. Shortened treatment durations, which may have lower cure rates, have been proposed to reduce costs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of different shortened treatment durations for genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients.

METHODS

Assuming a UK National Health Service perspective, we used a probabilistic decision tree and Markov model to compare 3 unstratified shortened treatment durations (8, 6, and 4 weeks) against a standard 12-week treatment duration. Patients failing shortened first-line treatment were re-treated with a 12-week treatment regimen. Parameter inputs were taken from published studies.

RESULTS

The 8-week treatment duration had an expected incremental net monetary benefit of £7737 (95% confidence interval £3242-£11 819) versus the standard 12-week treatment, per 1000 patients. The 6-week treatment had a positive incremental net monetary benefit, although some uncertainty was observed. The probability that the 8- and 6-week treatments were the most cost-effective was 56% and 25%, respectively, whereas that for the 4-week treatment was 17%. Results were generally robust to sensitivity analyses, including a threshold analysis that showed that the 8-week treatment was the most cost-effective at all drug prices lower than £40 000 per 12-week course.

CONCLUSIONS

Shortening treatments licensed for 12 weeks to 8 weeks is cost-effective in genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients. There was considerable uncertainty in the estimates for 6- and 4-week treatments, with some indication that the 6-week treatment may be cost-effective.

Cost Effectiveness of Early Treatment with Direct-Acting Antiviral Therapy in Adolescent Patients with Hepatitis C Virus Infection

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of early treatment with direct-acting antiviral therapy in adolescent patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection compared with treatment deferral.

STUDY DESIGN

We constructed a Markov model to assess the cost effectiveness of treating a hypothetical cohort of 30 000 adolescent patients with chronic HCV at age 12 years compared with deferring treatment until adulthood from a societal perspective. Model inputs for transition probabilities, HCV treatment and medical care costs, and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) utilities were derived from the literature and wholesale acquisition estimates. Deterministic sensitivity analyses varied parameters for non-HCV medical care and treatment cost, reinfection rates, treatment uptake, disease progression, liver transplant survival, and treatment with recently approved pangenotypic direct-acting antiviral agents. Discounted costs and total QALYs per person were quantified after 30 years. Cost effectiveness was evaluated as the incremental change in total medical costs per QALY gained.

RESULTS

The incremental cost effectiveness of early treatment initiation compared with deferred treatment was approximately $27 000 per QALY gained after 30 years and considered cost effective. In a scenario analysis, hypothetical treatment initiation with currently available pangenotypic agents would be even more cost effective, ranging from $10 000 to $21 000 per QALY gained. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to variations in decompensated cirrhosis progression in adolescence, adult reinfection, and treatment uptake in adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Early treatment in adolescent patients with chronic HCV infection with currently available direct-acting antivirals seems to be cost effective compared with deferred treatment. Future efforts to control the HCV epidemic should include increasing the number of children treated.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

New direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have high efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) versus daclatasvir plus asunaprevir (DCV + ASV) in Chinese patients with chronic HCV genotype (GT) 1b infection stratified by cirrhosis status and treatment history.

METHODS

A cohort state-transition model was constructed to simulate the course of chronic HCV infection in patients stratified by cirrhosis status and treatment history. The model projected lifetime outcomes and costs in terms of HCV treatment, laboratory tests, clinical procedures, and hospitalizations. Mean age of the study cohort at baseline was 45 years, based on published sources. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates were derived from clinical trials. Healthcare resource utilization and health utilities were extracted or estimated from published studies in Chinese populations. The stability of the base-case analysis was validated by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In each subpopulation of Chinese patients, treatment with EBR/GZR dominated treatment with DCV + ASV, with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that EBR/GZR was the cost-effective option compared to DCV + ASV in 77.4-97.4% or 94.1-100% of model simulations in Chinese treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced patients, respectively, as the cost-effectiveness threshold changed from zero to US$24,150/QALY (three times GDP per capita in China).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with EBR/GZR was the cost-effective option for patients with chronic HCV GT1b infection in China, regardless of cirrhosis status or treatment history.

Economic evaluation of Zepatier for the management of HCV in the Italian scenario

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a major health issue worldwide. New generation of direct-active antiviral medications is an epoch-making turning point in the management of HCV infections.

OBJECTIVE

Conducing a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the combination of elbasvir/grazoprevir and sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin for the management of all HCV patients (even those in the initial stages of fibrosis).

METHODS

A Markov model was built on the natural history of the disease to assess the efficacy of the alternatives. The outcomes are expressed in terms of quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and result in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio).

RESULTS

Elbasvir/grazoprevir implies an expenditure of €21,104,253.74 with a gain of 19,287.90 QALYs and sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin implies an expenditure of €31,904,410.11 with a gain of 18,855.96 QALYs. Elbasvir/grazoprevir is thus a dominant strategy.

CONCLUSION

Consideration should be given to the opportunity cost of not treating patients with a lower degree of fibrosis (F0-F2).

Utilization and efficacy of elbasvir/grazoprevir for treating hepatitis C virus infection after liver transplantation

AIM

Recently, elbasvir/grazoprevir combination therapy (EBR/GZR) was reported to have excellent antiviral effects for chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. However, it has not been recommended for patients with post-liver transplant (LT) HCV re-infections because of a lack of evidence for effectiveness and drug-drug interactions.

METHODS

We report the usage of EBR/GZR in five post-LT HCV re-infected patients with the kinetics of renal function and tacrolimus trough levels during and after therapy. Furthermore, to evaluate the antiviral effects, we examined the HCV kinetics during and after therapy and compared this with other interferon-free therapy in post-LT patients (n = 19).

RESULTS

All patients treated with EBR/GZR therapy obtained rapid virologic response and sustained at 12 weeks post-treatment. There was no evidence of worsening estimated glomerular filtration rates. Three patients were given tacrolimus as immunosuppressive therapy and its trough levels were controllable with dosage adjustments. One patient developed grade 1 diarrhea 3 days after therapy induction. To evaluate the antiviral effects of EBR/GZR therapy for these patients, we compared them to the effects of daclatasvir/asunaprevir combination therapy (n = 8) and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir combination therapy (n = 11). The EBR/GZR combination was not inferior to other therapies in its early phase and late-phase antiviral effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Although further studies with a larger number of patients are required, we suggest that EBR/GZR therapy is an alternative therapy for patients with post-LT genotype 1 HCV re-infection.

Unique Challenges of Hepatitis C in Infants, Children, and Adolescents

PURPOSE

Hepatitis C, a chronic disease with deadly consequences, is no longer predominantly a disease of older people.

METHODS

A limited search was conducted of the relevant literature on 2 topics: (1) the impact of hepatitis C on infants exposed by vertical transmission; and (2) the impact of hepatitis C infection on infected children and adolescents. The findings were supplemented by the first-hand experience of the authors.

FINDINGS

Young people, including women of childbearing age, infants, children, and adolescents, are being especially affected by hepatitis C infection secondary to the intravenous drug use and opioid epidemic. Unfortunately, estimates of disease in young populations are all misleading because universal screening has not been implemented.

IMPLICATIONS

Lack of implementation of policies for screening and therapy on most affected populations will be responsible for perpetuation of this infection. In the era of highly effective therapy and a regimen that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for children, this outcome is unacceptable.