Cost-effectiveness of Direct Antiviral Agents for Hepatitis C Virus Infection and a Combined Intervention of Syringe Access and Medication-assisted Therapy for Opioid Use Disorders in an Injection Drug Use Population

Cost effectiveness of hepatitis C direct acting agents

INTRODUCTION

Introduction of direct acting antivirals (DAA) has transformed treatment of chronic hepatitis C (HCV) and made the elimination of HCV an achievable goal set forward by World Health Organization by 2030. Multiple barriers need to be overcome for successful eradication of HCV. Availability of pan-genotypic HCV regimens has decreased the need for genotype testing but maintained high efficacy associated with DAAs.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we will assess the cost-effectiveness of DAA treatment in patients with chronic HCV disease, with emphasis on general, cirrhosis, and vulnerable populations.

EXPERT OPINION

Multiple barriers exist limiting eradication of HCV, including cost to treatment, access, simplified testing, and implementing policy to foster treatment for all groups of HCV patients. Clinically, DAAs have drastically changed the landscape of HCV, but focused targeting of vulnerable groups is needed. Public policy will continue to play a strong role in eliminating HCV. While we will focus on the cost-effectiveness of DAA, several other factors regarding HCV require on going attention, such as increasing public awareness and decreasing social stigma associated with HCV, offering universal screening followed by linkage to treatment and improving preventive interventions to decrease spread of HCV.

Economic evaluation of the Hepatitis C virus elimination program in the country of Georgia, 2015 to 2017

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In 2015, the country of Georgia launched an elimination program aiming to reduce the prevalence of Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection by 90% from 5.4% prevalence (~150 000 people). During the first 2.5 years of the program, 770 832 people were screened, 48 575 were diagnosed with active HCV infection, and 41 483 patients were treated with direct-acting antiviral (DAA)-based regimens, with a >95% cure rate.

METHODS

We modelled the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of HCV screening, diagnosis and treatment between April 2015 and November 2017 compared to no treatment, in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in 2017 US dollars, with a 3% discount rate over 25 years. We compared the ICER to willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of US$4357 (GDP) and US$871 (opportunity cost) per QALY gained.

RESULTS

The average cost of screening, HCV viremia testing, and treatment per patient treated was $386 to the provider, $225 to the patient and $1042 for generic DAAs. At 3% discount, 0.57 QALYs were gained per patient treated. The ICER from the perspective of the provider including generic DAAs was $2285 per QALY gained, which is cost-effective at the $4357 WTP threshold, while if patient costs are included, it is just above the threshold at $4398/QALY. All other scenarios examined in sensitivity analyses remain cost-effective except for assuming a shorter time horizon to the end of 2025 or including the list price DAA cost. Reducing or excluding DAA costs reduced the ICER below the opportunity-cost WTP threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

The Georgian HCV elimination program provides valuable evidence that national programs for scaling up HCV screening and treatment for achieving HCV elimination can be cost-effective.

Cost of providing co-located hepatitis C treatment at a syringe service program exceeds potential reimbursement: Results from a clinical trial

Background

Co-located hepatitis C treatment at syringe service programs (SSP) is an emerging model of care for people who inject drugs (PWID). Implementation of these models can be informed by understanding the program costs.

Methods

We conducted an economic evaluation of a hepatitis C treatment intervention at an SSP in New York City implemented as one arm of a randomized trial from 2017 to 2021. Start-up and operating costs were determined from the treatment program's perspective using micro-costing and were compared to potential Medicaid reimbursement. We applied nationally representative unit costs and wage rates. Results are reported in 2020 USD.

Results

The treatment program was staffed by one physician and one care coordinator. Participants were offered hepatitis C clinical evaluation and treatment, a 45-min reinfection prevention education session, and additional care coordination as needed. The trial enrolled 84 PWID with hepatitis C in the intervention arm; 64 initiated treatment and 55 achieved sustained virological response. Start-up costs including training and equipment totaled $4677. Overhead costs including rent, utilities and software totaled $2229 per month. Clinical and care coordination totaled $4867 per participant, of which $3722 was care coordination. The total cost excluding startup was $6035 per enrolled participant and $7921 per treated participant; estimated potential reimbursement was $628 per enrolled participant.

Conclusion

Our results provide insight to US-based SSPs seeking to provide co-located hepatitis C care and highlight the intensive care coordination services provided. Successful implementation likely requires funding sources beyond health insurers or substantial changes to insurance reimbursement for care coordination.

Cost-effectiveness of syringe service programs, medications for opioid use disorder, and combination programs in hepatitis C harm reduction among opioid injection drug users: a public payer perspective using a decision tree

BACKGROUND: The hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence rate among injection drug users (IDUs) in North America is 55.2%, with 1.41 million individuals estimated to be HCV-antibody positive. Studies have shown the effectiveness of syringe service programs (SSPs) alone, medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) alone, or SSP+MOUD combination in reducing HCV transmission among opioid IDUs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SSP alone, MOUD alone, and SSP + MOUD combination in preventing HCV cases among opioid IDUs in the United States. METHODS: We used a decision tree analysis model based on published literature and publicly available data. Effectiveness was presented as the number of HCV cases avoided per 100 opioid IDUs. A micro-costing approach was undertaken and included both direct medical and nonmedical costs. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a public payer perspective over a 1-year time horizon. It was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and an incremental cost savings per HCV case avoided per 100 opioid IDUs compared with cost savings with "no intervention." Costs were standardized to 2019 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: The incremental cost savings per HCV case avoided per 100 opioid IDUs compared with no intervention were as follows: SSP + MOUD combination = $347,573; SSP alone = $363,821; MOUD alone = $317,428. The ICER for the combined strategy was $4,699 compared with the ICER for the SSP group. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results of the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis were sensitive to variations in the probabilities of injection-risk behavior for the SSP and SSP + MOUD combination groups, probability of no HCV with no intervention, and costs of MOUD and HCV antiviral medications. CONCLUSIONS: The SSP + MOUD combination and SSP alone strategies dominate MOUD alone and no intervention strategies. SSP had the largest incremental cost savings per HCV case avoided per 100 opioid IDUs compared with the no intervention strategy. Public payers adopting the SSP + MOUD combination harm-reduction strategy instead of SSP alone would have to pay an additional $4,699 to avoid an additional HCV case among opioid IDUs. Although these harm-reduction programs will provide benefits in a 1-year time frame, the largest benefit may become evident in the years ahead. DISCLOSURES: This research had no external funding. The authors declare no financial interests in this article. Ijioma is a Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) postdoctoral Fellow with Virginia Commonwealth University and Indivior. Indivior is a pharmaceutical manufacturer of opioid addiction treatment drugs but was not involved in the design, analysis, or write-up of the manuscript.