The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peginterferon alfa and ribavirin for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in children and young people: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of children with mother-to-child transmitted hepatitis C virus infection

BACKGROUND

The first guidelines for care of pregnant women carrying the hepatitis C virus (HCV) and their infants were published in 2005 in Japan. Since then, evidence has gradually accumulated worldwide regarding the natural course and treatment of this condition and, especially in recent years, treatment for chronic hepatitis C in adult patients has made great progress. However, the clinical practice policy for children has not been standardized, and new clinical practice guidelines for children with mother-to-child (MTC) transmitted HCV infection have become necessary.

METHODS

In the development of the current guideline, we requested cooperation from The Japanese Society for Pediatric Infectious Diseases, The Japan Society of Hepatology, and the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The committee members were recommended and approved by each society to participate in developing the guidelines. The guideline was also created in accordance with the Minds Guide for Practice Guideline Development. The statements were prepared by consensus-building using the Delphi method, based on the comprehensively searched academic papers and guidelines. These articles were retrieved through searching the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and the Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases.

RESULTS

Eight clinical questions (CQs) with clinical statements were developed regarding etiology (CQs 1-3), diagnosis (CQs 4 and 5), and treatment (two CQs 6 and 7). In each statement, the consensus rate, evidence level, and recommendation level were determined.

CONCLUSION

The guidelines will be helpful in the management of children with hepatitis C MTC transmission.

Cost-effectiveness of Oral Regimens for Adolescents With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection

BACKGROUND

Novel oral regimes have been approved for treating hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in adolescents due to their superior effectiveness and safety. However, its economic outcome is still unclear in this population. The current analysis investigates the cost-effectiveness of novel oral regimens compared with that of pegylated interferon α with ribavirin (PR) therapies in adolescents in the context of the United States and China.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to measure the economic and health outcomes of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LS) for genotypes 1 and 4, sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SR) for genotype 2, and ledipasvir/sofosbuvir/ribavirin (LSR) for genotype 3 HCV infection compared with the outcomes of PR treatment. Clinical costs and utility inputs were gathered from published sources. Lifetime discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured. The uncertainty was facilitated by 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the United States, the ICERs of LS strategy were $14,699 and $14,946/QALY for genotypes 1 and 4 HCV infection, respectively; the ICER of SR strategy for genotype 2 was $42,472/QALY; and the ICER of LSR for genotype 3 was $49,409/QALY in comparison with the PR strategy. In Chinese adolescents, LS for genotypes 1 and 4, SR for genotype 2, and LSR for genotype 3 were the dominant alternatives to the PR strategy. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel oral regimes for adolescents with HCV infection are likely to be cost-effective in the context of the United States and China.

Critical appraisal of nonrandomized studies-A review of recommended and commonly used tools

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

When randomized controlled trial data are limited or unavailable, or to supplement randomized controlled trial evidence, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies may rely on systematic reviews of nonrandomized studies (NRSs) for evidence of the effectiveness of health care interventions. NRS designs may introduce considerable bias into systematic reviews, and several methodologies by which to evaluate this risk of bias are available. This study aimed to identify tools commonly used to assess bias in NRS and determine those recommended by HTA bodies.

METHODS

Appraisal tools used in NRS were identified through a targeted search of systematic reviews (January 2013-March 2017; MEDLINE and EMBASE [OVID SP]). Recommendations for the critical appraisal of NRS by expert review groups and HTA bodies were reviewed.

RESULTS

From the 686 studies included in the narrative synthesis, 48 critical appraisal tools were identified. Commonly used tools included the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the methodological index for NRS, and bespoke appraisal tools. Neither the Cochrane Handbook nor the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination recommends a particular instrument for the assessment of risk of bias in NRS, although Cochrane has recently developed their own NRS critical appraisal tool. Among HTA bodies, only the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health recommends use of a specific critical appraisal tool-SIGN 50 (for cohort or case-control studies). Several criteria including reporting, external validity, confounding, and power were examined.

CONCLUSION

There is no consensus between HTA groups on the preferred appraisal tool. Reviewers should select from a suite of tools on the basis of the design of studies included in their review.

Evaluation of health status in patients with hepatitis c treated with and without interferon

Background

The evolution of technology in healthcare has increased the health care’s costs and, the universal healthcare systems, in developed countries, need to ensure proper allocation of resources. Thus, the major issue is assessing the effectiveness of new medical technologies. The evaluation of quality of life in response to new treatments has become a key indicator in chronic conditions for which medical interventions are evaluated not only in terms of increasing the number of expected life years but also in terms of increasing quality of life. The aim of this observational study was to verify whether a simple instrument (EQ-5D-5 L) can capture variations in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and allow us to evaluate the impact of different drug treatment protocols in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) on daily activities.

Methods

Sixty six patients with HCV were consecutively enrolled in the Hepatology Unit at the University Hospital of Catania “G. Rodolico”. Sixteen patients received new direct-acting-antiviral agents (DAAs) plus pegylated alpha interferon (Peg-α-IFN) protocol (Group A) and 50 DAAs IFN free protocol (Group B).

The EQ-5D-5 L® questionnaire and visual analog scale (VAS) were given to both groups to calculate coefficient’s utility. We used the EQ-5D-5 L Crosswalk Index Value Calculator to obtain the utility EQIndex and both parametric and non parametric tests for the statistical analysis.

Results

The biopsy taken at the beginning of treatment showed comparable cell damage in both groups. The difference in the VAS results was negative for patients who received protocols containing IFN (indicating decreased quality of life),whereas it was positive in patients treated with IFN-free protocols. The baseline EQIndex did not reveal any differences between the two treatment groups. The post-treatment EQIndex was statistically better in the groups that received IFN-free therapy.

Conclusions

When innovative treatments are introduced into clinical practice, assessing quality of life is mandatory to determine their benefits. The instruments used in the present study are effective in detecting the areas in which improvement has occurred. These instruments can be easily managed by general practitioners for follow up of progression of the disease and referred to the specialist.

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.

The impact of antiviral therapy for hepatitis C on the quality of life: a perspective

Instruments to assess the impact of hepatitis C virus infection on health and measurements of reported outcomes in patients (health-related quality of life [HRQOL]) are not frequently used to assign priority for treatment. Several systematic reviews have been performed that provide a comprehensive analysis to help understand patient reported outcomes (PROs) with direct acting antiviral treatment. Clinical trials with direct acting antivirals (DAAs) provide an important opportunity to assess PROs without interferon or ribavirin. Significant improvement in quality of life parameters have been noted with DAA therapy. The results show improvement in HRQOL indices when interferon-free and particularly interferon and ribavirin-free treatments are compared to interferon and ribavirin treatment. Improvements in HRQOL indices are an encouraging aspect of the cure of chronic hepatitis C. It is unclear whether these measurable HRQOL improvements can be translated into a net benefit improvement in work productivity and a social dimension that is significant enough to convince payers of the added value of early and more widespread treatment.

Effective but costly: How to tackle difficult trade-offs in evaluating health improving technologies in liver diseases

In the current context of rising health care costs and decreasing sustainability, it is becoming increasingly common to resort to decision analytical modeling and health economics evaluations. Decision analytic models are analytical tools that help decision makers to select the best choice between alternative health care interventions, taking into consideration the complexity of the disease, the socioeconomic context, and the relevant differences in outcomes. We present a brief overview of the use of decision analytical models in health economic evaluations and their applications in the area of liver diseases. The aim is to provide the reader with the basic elements to evaluate health economic analysis reports and to discuss some limitations of the current approaches, as highlighted by the case of the therapy of chronic hepatitis C. To serve its purpose, health economics evaluations must be able to do justice to medical innovation and the market while protecting patients and society and promoting fair access to treatment and its economic sustainability.

CONCLUSION

New approaches and methods able to include variables such as prevalence of the disease, budget impact, and sustainability into the cost-effectiveness analysis are needed to reach this goal. (Hepatology 2016;64:1331-1342).