The cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir-based regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 4 in the UK

The global burden of cirrhosis: A review of disability-adjusted life-years lost and unmet needs

Cirrhosis is a burden on the individual and on public health. The World Health Organization's metric of public health burden is the disability-adjusted life-year (DALY), the sum of years of life lost due to premature death and years of life lived with disability. The more DALYs attributable to a disease, the greater its burden on public health. Cirrhosis was responsible for 26.8% fewer DALYs in 2019 than in 1990, which is positive, but the reduction in DALYs across the spectrum of diseases in and outside the liver was 34.4%. Hepatitis C (26% of DALYs), alcohol (24%), and hepatitis B (23%) contribute almost equally to the global burden of cirrhosis. The contribution from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (8%) is small but increasing. There is substantial global variation in the burden and causes of cirrhosis. We find that the poorest countries carry the greatest burden of cirrhosis, and that this burden is primarily caused by cirrhosis from hepatitis B infection. Interventions targeting hepatitis B infection are known, but not fully implemented. In more affluent countries, alcohol and hepatitis C are the dominant causes of cirrhosis, but non-alcoholic fatty liver will likely become a dominant cause of cirrhosis in parallel with the increasing prevalence of obesity. We also argue that the World Health Organization underestimates the public health burden associated with cirrhosis because it assigns zero disability to compensated cirrhosis and considers decompensated cirrhosis as only mildly disabling.

Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values Used in European Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations for Chronic Hepatitis C: Impact on Cost-Effectiveness Results

BACKGROUND

Health state utility values (HSUVs) identified from utility elicitation studies are widely used in pharmacoeconomic evaluations for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and are particularly instrumental in health technology assessment (HTA) evaluations such as those from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify HSUVs used in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) for CHC in Europe and to evaluate the impact of HSUV selection on cost-effectiveness results in terms of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (ICER).

METHODS

A systematic search of pharmacoeconomic evaluations for CHC was updated in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for the periods 2012-2017 and 2017-2020. Data on health states, HSUVs, and utility elicitation studies were extracted. The difference in HSUVs of the same health state in different CUAs, and the difference between HSUVs of one health state and of the interlink health state in the same CUAs, were calculated. A quality assessment was performed to evaluate the selection of HSUVs in CUAs. Sets of HSUVs identified were used in a reconstructed CUA model to assess the impact on the ICER.

RESULTS

Twenty-six CUAs conducted in European countries and referring to 17 utility elicitation studies were included. The difference in HSUVs of the same health state in different CUAs ranged from 0.021 (liver transplant) to 0.468 (decompensated cirrhosis). The difference between HSUVs of one health state and of the interlink health state of the next disease severity level was calculated between the health states of F0-F1/mild and F2-F3/moderate (n = 11, 0.040-0.110), F2-F3/moderate and F4/compensated cirrhosis (n = 18, 0.027-0.130), compensated cirrhosis and decompensated cirrhosis (n = 22, 0.020-0.100), decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 24, 0.000-0.200), hepatocellular carcinoma and liver transplant in the first year (n = 17, - 0.329 to 0.170) and liver transplant in the first and subsequent years (n = 17, - 0.340 to 0.000). The utility elicitation study selected by most CUAs (n = 11) was recommended as the source of HSUVs, at least for the CUAs conducted in the UK, based on the results of quality assessment. Seven sets of HSUVs were generated to fit the reconstructed model and changed the results of the incremental analysis from being cost effective to not being cost effective (ICER ranging from £2460 to £24,954 per QALY gained), and to being dominated in the UK setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The CUAs for CHC were found to apply to various HSUVs from different utility elicitation studies in the same health state. This variability in HSUVs has the potential to significantly affect ICER and ICER-based reimbursement decisions. A rigorous selection of HSUVs in CUAs to inform healthcare resource allocation is suggested for future studies of CUAs and for guideline development.

Cost-effectiveness of second-generation direct-acting antiviral agents in chronic HCV infection: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Our objectives were to review the economic modelling methods and cost-effectiveness of second-generation direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of chronic HCV infection.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in February 2017 using Scopus and OVID to review relevant publications between 2011 to present. Two independent reviewers screened potential papers.

RESULTS

The database search resulted in a total of 1,536 articles; after deduplication, title/abstract and full text screening, 67 studies were included for qualitative analysis. The vast majority of studies were conducted in high-income countries (n=59) and used Markov-based modelling techniques (n=60). Most of the analyses utilized long-term time horizons; 58 studies calculated lifetime costs and outcomes. The examined treatments were heterogenic among the studies; seven analyses did not directly evaluate treatments (just with screening or genotype testing). The examined treatments (n=60) were either dominant (23%), or cost-effective at base case (57%) or in given subgroups (18%). Only one (2%) study reported that the assessed treatment was not cost-effective with the given setting and price.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite their high initial therapeutic costs, second-generation direct-acting antiviral agents were found to be cost-effective to treat chronic HCV infection. Studies were predominantly conducted in higher income countries, although we have limited information on cost-effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries, where assessment of cost-effectiveness is even more essential due to more limited health-care resources and potentially higher public health burden due to unsafe medical interventions.

Estimating the price at which hepatitis C treatment with direct-acting antivirals would be cost-saving in Japan

In Japan, 1.5-2 million people are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. New direct-acting antiviral agents (DAA) offer an unprecedented opportunity to cure HCV. While the price of HCV treatment decreased recently in most countries, it remains one of the highest in Japan. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment in patients of different age groups and to estimate the price at which DAAs become cost-saving in Japan. A previously developed microsimulation model was adapted to the Japanese population and updated with Japan-specific health utilities and costs. Our model showed that compared with no treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of DAAs at a price USD 41,046 per treatment was USD 9,080 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in 60-year-old patients. HCV treatment became cost-effective after 9 years of starting treatment. However, if the price of DAAs is reduced by 55-85% (USD 6,730 to 17,720), HCV treatment would be cost-saving within a 5 to 20-year time horizon, which should serve to increase the uptake of DAA-based HCV treatment. The payers of health care in Japan could examine ways to procure DAAs at a price where they would be cost-saving.

Outcomes and costs of treating hepatitis C patients with second-generation direct-acting antivirals: results from the German Hepatitis C-Registry

OBJECTIVE

Chronic hepatitis C virus infection is associated with a significant health burden. Long-term consequences are the development of liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The introduction of direct-acting antivirals (DAA) has led to an increase in sustained virologic response rates (SVR), but is accompanied by higher treatment costs. The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes and costs of treating hepatitis C virus infected patients with DAAs in clinical practice in Germany.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were derived from a noninterventional study including a pharmacoeconomic subset of 2673 patients with genotypes 1 and 3 who initiated and completed treatment between February 2014 and February 2017. Sociodemographic and clinical parameters as well as resource utilization were collected using a web-based data recording system. Costs were calculated using official remuneration schemes.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 54.6 years; 48% were men. 93.5% of all patients achieved an SVR. The average total treatment costs were &OV0556;67 979 (&OV0556;67 131 medication costs, &OV0556;824 ambulatory care, &OV0556;24 hospital costs). The average costs per SVR of &OV0556;72 705 were calculated. Differences in SVR and costs according to genotype, treatment regimen, treatment experience, and cirrhosis were observed. Quality-of-life data showed no or a minimal decrease during treatment.

CONCLUSION

This analysis confirms high SVR rates for newly introduced DAAs in a real-world setting. Costs per SVR estimated are comparable to first-generation DAA. Given the fact that the costs for the currently used treatment regimens have declined, it can be assumed that the costs per SVR have also decreased. Our insight into real-world outcomes and costs can serve as a basis for a comparison with the mentioned newly introduced treatment regimens.

Cost-utility analysis of second-generation direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C: a systematic review

High prices of second-generation direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients led to reimbursement decisions based on cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Areas covered: We performed a systematic review of cost-utility analyses (CUA) comparing interventions with second-generation DAA therapies with no treatment, and with previous therapies for chronic HCV patients until July 2017. A total of 36 studies were included: 30 studies from the perspective of the healthcare payer, 3 from the societal perspective, and 3 did not report the perspective. For genotype 1, the highest number of ICER comparison corresponds to sofosbuvir (SOF) triple therapy and SOF-based combinations which reported a cost per QALY systematically ranging from negative to lower than US$100,000 when compared with no treatment or dual therapy or Simeprevir triple therapy. Expert commentary: Selected studies may be overestimating the true cost per QALY of second-generation DAAs in the treatment of HCV, mainly because of neglecting non-healthcare costs, using official list prices which are higher than actual transaction prices and not adopting the long run drug price in a dynamic approach. In addition, the impact of important price reductions of several DAAs in recent years on cost per QALY should be considered.

Daclatasvir combined with asunaprevir is a cost-effective and cost-saving treatment for hepatitis C infection in China

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the novel all-oral direct-acting antiviral regimen daclatasvir + asunaprevir (DUAL), versus interferon-based regimens for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1b infection. Methods: Inputs for a lifetime Markov model were sourced from clinical trials and published literature. Outputs include disease management costs, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years and cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses assessed the drivers of cost-effectiveness and sustained virologic response thresholds at which DUAL is cost-saving. Results: DUAL was associated with discounted incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 1.29-3.85 and incremental life-years of 0.85-2.59 per patient, with discounted lifetime cost savings of USD$1415-8525. Associated sustained virologic response rates could fall to 45.1-84.8%, while remaining dominant. Conclusion: Treatment with DUAL provides significant clinical benefit, while accruing lower lifetime costs.

Population Health and Cost-Effectiveness Implications of a "Treat All" Recommendation for HCV: A Review of the Model-Based Evidence

The World Health Organization HCV Guideline Development Group is considering a "treat all" recommendation for persons infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV). We reviewed the model-based evidence of cost-effectiveness and population health impacts comparing expanded treatment policies to more limited treatment access policies, focusing primarily on evaluations of all-oral directly acting antivirals published after 2012. Searching PubMed, we identified 2,917 unique titles. Sequentially reviewing titles and abstracts identified 226 potentially relevant articles for full-text review. Sixty-nine articles met all inclusion criteria-42 cost-effectiveness analyses and 30 models of population-health impacts, with 3 articles presenting both types of analysis. Cost-effectiveness studies for many countries concluded that expanding treatment to people with mild liver fibrosis, who inject drugs (PWID), or who are incarcerated is generally cost-effective compared to more restrictive treatment access policies at country-specific prices. For certain patient subpopulations in some countries-for example, elderly individuals without fibrosis-treatment is only cost-effective at lower prices. A frequent limitation is the omission of benefits and consequences of HCV transmission (i.e., treatment as prevention; risks of reinfection), which may underestimate or overestimate the cost-effectiveness of a "treat all" policy. Epidemiologic modeling studies project that through a combination of prevention, aggressive screening and diagnosis, and prompt treatment for all fibrosis stages, it may be possible to virtually eliminate HCV in many countries. Studies show that if resources are not available to diagnose and treat all HCV-infected individuals, treatment prioritization may be needed, with alternative prioritization strategies resulting in tradeoffs between reducing mortality or reducing incidence. Notably, because most new HCV infections are among PWID in many settings, HCV elimination requires unrestricted treatment access combined with injection transmission disruption strategies. The model-based evidence suggests that a properly constructed strategy that substantially expands HCV treatment could achieve cost-effective improvements in population health in many countries.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of elbasvir-grazoprevir regimen for treating hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection in stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease patients in France

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of the elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) regimen in patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with severe and end-stage renal disease compared to no treatment.

Design

This study uses a health economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating previously untreated and treatment experienced chronic hepatitis C patients who have severe and end stage renal disease with the elbasvir-grazoprevir regimen versus no treatment in the French context. The lifetime homogeneous markovian model comprises of forty combined health states including hepatitis C virus and chronic kidney disease. The model parameters were from a multicentre randomized controlled trial, ANRS CO22 HEPATHER French cohort and literature. 1000 Monte Carlo simulations of patient health states for each treatment strategy are used for probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 95% confidence intervals calculations. The results were expressed in cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

Patients

The mean age of patients in the HEPATHER French cohort was 59.6 years and 56% of them were men. 22.3% of patients had a F0 fibrosis stage (no fibrosis), 24.1% a F1 stage (portal fibrosis without septa), 7.1% a F2 stage (portal fibrosis with few septa), 21.4% a F3 stage (numerous septa without fibrosis) and 25% a F4 fibrosis stage (compensated cirrhosis). Among these HCV genotype 1 patients, 30% had severe renal impairment stage 4, 33% had a severe renal insufficiency stage 5 and 37% had terminal severe renal impairment stage 5 treated by dialysis.

Intervention

Fixed-dose combination of direct-acting antiviral agents elbasvir and grazoprevir compared to no-treatment.

Results

EBR/GZR increased the number of life years (6.3 years) compared to no treatment (5.1 years) on a lifetime horizon. The total number of QALYs was higher for the new treatment because of better utility on health conditions (6.2 versus 3.7 QALYs). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was of €15,212 per QALY gained for the base case analysis.

Conclusions

This cost-utility model is an innovative approach that simultaneously looks at the disease evolution of chronic hepatitis C and chronic kidney disease. EBR/GZR without interferon and ribavirin, produced the greatest benefit in terms of life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in treatment-naïve or experienced patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 and stage 4–5 chronic kidney disease including dialysis patients. Based on shape of the acceptability curve, EBR/GZR can be considered cost-effective at a willingness to pay of €20,000 /QALY for patients with renal insufficiency with severe and end-stage renal disease compared to no treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of daclatasvir + sofosbuvir + ribavirin (16 weeks and 12 weeks) vs sofosbuvir + ribavirin (16 weeks and 24 weeks) for the treatment of cirrhotic patients affected with hepatitis C virus genotype 3 in Italy

The WHO estimates that more than 185 million people are infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) worldwide. The aim of the study is to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the use of daclatasvir (DCV) + sofosbuvir (SOF) + ribavirin (RBV) for 12 and 16 weeks vs SOF + RBV for 16 and 24 weeks for the treatment of genotype 3 HCV infected cirrhotic patients from the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A published cohort-based Markov model was used to perform the analysis estimating the lifetime direct medical costs associated with the management of the pathology and the quality adjusted life years gained by patients. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. SOF + RBV for 16 weeks was excluded from the analysis due to the significant lower effectiveness, compared with SOF + RBV for 24 weeks (51% vs 79%). DCV + SOF + RBV would increase QALYs and costs in all the comparisons: the ICERs obtained comparing DCV + SOF + RBV for 12 and 16 weeks with SOF + RBV for 24 weeks (reference scenario) are 38,572 €/QALY and 16,436 €/QALY, respectively, both below the 40,000 €/QALY threshold identified by the Italian Health Economics Association. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. The use of DCV + SOF + RBV is likely to be cost-effective compared with SOF + RBV (for 24 weeks) for the treatment of cirrhotic patients infected with genotype 3 HCV considering a threshold value of 40,000 €/QALY.

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.

Daclatasvir: A Review in Chronic Hepatitis C

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS5A replication complex inhibitor daclatasvir (Daklinza(®)) is indicated for use in combination with sofosbuvir, with or without ribavirin, in a pangenotypic all-oral regimen. In patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 or 3 infection without cirrhosis, a 12-week regimen of daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir achieved high sustained virological response rates 12 weeks' post-treatment (SVR12), regardless of prior treatment experience, according to the results of the AI444040 and ALLY-3 trials. In the ALLY-3+ trial, high SVR12 rates were achieved with a 12- or 16-week regimen of daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir and ribavirin in patients with chronic HCV genotype 3 infection and advanced fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis. A daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir-based regimen demonstrated efficacy in patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, 3 or 4 infection and advanced cirrhosis or post-transplant recurrence in the ALLY-1 trial, and in patients co-infected with HCV genotype 1, 3 or 4 and HIV-1 in the ALLY-2 trial. Results of clinical trials were supported by real-world data from early-access programmes that included high numbers of patients who would have been excluded from phase 3 trials because of advanced disease and/or concomitant medical conditions. Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin was generally well tolerated. In conclusion, an all-oral regimen comprising daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin is an important option for use in treatment-naive or treatment-experienced patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, 3 or 4 infection, including in patients with advanced liver disease, post-transplant recurrence and HIV-1 co-infection.

A clinician's guide to the cost and health benefits of hepatitis C cure assessed from the individual patient perspective

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) remains a considerable public health challenge. Novel direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens offer high cure rates and the promise of reduced HCV incidence and prevalence following the up-scaling of treatment. This has focused attention towards affordability. This study aimed to estimate the economic value of cure to evaluate the treatment costs justifiable from the patient perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A published, validated HCV model was utilized to contrast clinical and cost outcomes for patients aged 30-70 years, stratified by METAVIR F0-F4, for (i) no treatment and (ii) successful treatment [i.e. sustained virologic response (SVR)] ignoring the cost of treatment. Regression equations were fitted and used to determine the financial expenditure justifiable to achieve a cost-neutral or a cost-effective [£20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] cure. Model inputs were derived from UK literature; costs and utilities were discounted at 3.5% over a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

To achieve cost-neutrality, the maximum discounted expenditure justifiable for SVR was £3774-43 607 across ages and fibrosis stages. Spending between £19 745 (70 years, F0) and £188 420 (30 years, F4) on SVR is expected to be cost-effective at £20 000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSION

Heterogeneity across HCV patients is considerable, which can obscure the relevance of conventional cohort-based economic models evaluated at the mean, particularly when considering the value of treatment at the individual patient level. By quantifying the full exposition of HCV cost-savings and health benefits realizable following HCV cure, this study provides insight into the economic value of successful treatment from the patient perspective.

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.

Comparing clinical presentations, treatments and outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma due to hepatitis C and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

INTRODUCTION

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing in incidence in the UK and globally. Liver cirrhosis is the common cause for developing HCC. The common reasons for liver cirrhosis are viral hepatitis C (HCV), viral hepatitis B and alcohol. However, HCC caused by non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)-cirrhosis is now increasingly as a result of rising worldwide obesity.

AIM

: To compare the clinical presentation, treatment options and outcomes of HCC due to HCV and NAFLD patients.

METHODS

Data were collected from two liver transplant centres in the UK (Birmingham and Newcastle upon Tyne) between 2000 and 2014. We compared 275 patients with HCV-related HCC against 212 patients with NAFLD- related HCC.

RESULTS

Patients in the NAFLD group were found to be significantly older ( P < 0.001) and more likely to be Caucasian ( P < 0.001). They had lower rates of cirrhosis ( P < 0.001) than those in HCV-HCC group. The NAFLD group presented with significantly larger tumours ( P = 0.009), whilst HCV patients had a higher alpha fetoprotein ( P = 0.018). NAFLD patients were more commonly treated with TACE ( P = 0.005) than the HCV patients, whilst the HCV group were significantly more likely to be transplanted ( P < 0.001). In patients selected for liver transplantation, 5-year survival rates in NAFLD were not significantly different from HCV-HCC (44 and 56% respectively, P = 0.102).

CONCLUSION

In this study, NAFLD patients presented with larger tumours that were less likely to be amenable to curative therapy, as compared with HCV patients. Despite this disadvantage, patients with NAFLD had similar overall survival compared to patients with HCV.

Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of One-Time Screening and Treatment for Hepatitis C in Korea

Background and Aims

This study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a one-time hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening and treatment program in South Korea where hepatitis B virus (HBV) prevails, in people aged 40–70, compared to current practice (no screening).

Methods

A published Markov model was used in conjunction with a screening and treatment decision tree to model patient cohorts, aged 40–49, 50–59 and 60–69 years, distributed across chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and compensated cirrhosis (CC) health states (82.5% and 17.5%, respectively). Based on a published seroepidemiology study, HCV prevalence was estimated at 0.60%, 0.80% and 1.53%, respectively. An estimated 71.7% of the population was screened. Post-diagnosis, 39.4% of patients were treated with a newly available all-oral direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimen over 5 years. Published rates of sustained virologic response, disease management costs, transition rates and utilities were utilised.

Results

Screening resulted in the identification of 43,635 previously undiagnosed patients across all cohorts. One-time HCV screening and treatment was estimated to be cost-effective across all cohorts; predicted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $5,714 to $8,889 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Incremental costs associated with screening, treatment and disease management ranged from $156.47 to $181.85 million USD; lifetime costs-offsets associated with the avoidance of end stage liver disease complications ranged from $51.47 to $57.48 million USD.

Conclusions

One-time HCV screening and treatment in South Korean people aged 40–70 is likely to be highly cost-effective compared to the current practice of no screening.

The economic and clinical burden of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in the United States and Europe

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a major cause of chronic liver disease. There is uncertainty around the economic burden of NAFLD. We constructed a steady-state prevalence model to quantify this burden in the United States and Europe. Five models were constructed to estimate the burden of NAFLD in the United States and four European countries. Models were built using a series of interlinked Markov chains, each representing age increments of the NAFLD and the general populations. Incidence and remission rates were calculated by calibrating against real-world prevalence rates. The data were validated using a computerized disease model called DisMod II. NAFLD patients transitioned between nine health states (nonalcoholic fatty liver, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis [NASH], NASH-fibrosis, NASH-compensated cirrhosis, NASH-decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, post-liver transplant, and death). Transition probabilities were sourced from the literature and calibrated against real-world data. Utilities were obtained from NAFLD patients using the Short Form-6D. Costs were sourced from the literature and local fee schedules. In the United States, over 64 million people are projected to have NAFLD, with annual direct medical costs of about $103 billion ($1,613 per patient). In the Europe-4 countries (Germany, France, Italy, and United Kingdom), there are ∼52 million people with NAFLD with an annual cost of about €35 billion (from €354 to €1,163 per patient). Costs are highest in patients aged 45-65. The burden is significantly higher when societal costs are included.

CONCLUSION

The analysis quantifies the enormity of the clinical and economic burdens of NAFLD, which will likely increase as the incidence of NAFLD continues to rise. (Hepatology 2016;64:1577-1586).