Cost-effectiveness of Interferon-free therapy for Hepatitis C in Germany--an application of the efficiency frontier approach

BACKGROUND

The approval of direct-acting antivirals for Interferon-free treatment revolutionized the therapy of chronic Hepatitis C infection. As of August 2014, two treatment regimens for genotype 1 infection received conditional approval in the European Union: Sofosbuvir and Ribavirin for 24 weeks and Sofosbuvir and Simeprevir with or without Ribavirin for 12 weeks. We aim to analyze the cost-effectiveness of both regimens in Germany.

METHODS

We set up a Markov model with a lifetime horizon to simulate immediate treatment success and long-term disease progression for treatment-naive patients. The model analyzes both short-term and long-term costs and benefits from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance. We apply the efficiency frontier method, which was suggested by German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care for cost-effectiveness analysis in Germany.

RESULTS

The efficiency frontier is defined by dual therapy and first generation direct-acting antiviral Boceprevir, yielding a maximum of € 1,447.69 per additional percentage point of sustained virologic response gained. Even without rebates, Sofosbuvir/Simeprevir is very close with € 1,560.13 per additional percentage point. It is both more effective and less expensive than Sofosbuvir/Ribavirin.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to higher sustained virologic response rates, new direct-acting antivirals save long-term costs by preventing complications such as liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and ultimately liver transplants, thereby offsetting part of higher drug costs. Our findings are in line with the guidance published by German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases, which recommends Sofosbuvir/Simeprevir for Interferon ineligible or intolerant patients.

Treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and costs in U.S. patients diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C infection who received telaprevir or boceprevir

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, with the future burden of disease predicted to significantly increase. The recent addition of 2 direct-acting antiviral (DAA) protease inhibitors, telaprevir and boceprevir, to peginterferon alfa (PEG) and ribavirin (RBV) therapy has been shown to significantly improve sustained virologic response rates and thus has become standard of care. While the efficacy and safety of DAAs has been assessed in the clinical trial setting, less is known about real-world use of these new therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) evaluate the treatment patterns, health care utilization, and costs of CHC patients receiving DAA-based therapies in the United States using a retrospective analysis of a large administrative claims database and (b) evaluate factors associated with therapy noncompletion using multivariable analyses.

METHODS

Adult patients with ≥ 1 claim for CHC and a prescription filled for boceprevir or telaprevir were selected from a de-identified U.S.-based claims database. The date of the first fill for a DAA after May 13, 2011 (date of first DAA availability) was defined as the index date, and patients were categorized into either the telaprevir or boceprevir cohort. Patients were required to have continuous eligibility and no claims for hepatitis B during the 6 months before (baseline) and 12 months following (study period) the index date. Baseline characteristics and study period treatment patterns, health care utilization, and costs were described. Factors associated with therapy noncompletion were examined using multivariable logistic regression, and adjusted health care costs were compared between the DAA cohorts using multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 871 telaprevir and 284 boceprevir patients were identified. DAA patients were aged 54 years on average and more often were male (60%, n = 688). Approximately 25% (n = 216) of telaprevir and 18% (n = 52) of boceprevir patients had cirrhosis, and 9% (n = 82) of telaprevir and 7% (n = 20) of boceprevir patients had decompensated cirrhosis at baseline. Less than 1% (n = 9) of patients were HIV co-infected. Approximately 54% (n = 470) of telaprevir and 74% (n = 210) of boceprevir patients did not complete the minimum duration of therapy as per the prescribing information (telaprevir: 12 weeks of triple + 12 weeks of dual; boceprevir: 3 weeks of lead-in + 24 weeks of triple). In multivariable analyses, females (vs. males) and patients taking boceprevir (vs. telaprevir) were more likely to not complete therapy (P = 0.011). CHC patients experienced high medical and drug-related resource utilization. Telaprevir patients had numerically higher study period unadjusted medical (boceprevir: $16,927; telaprevir: $19,519) and drug costs (boceprevir: $59,953; telaprevir: $76,497) than boceprevir patients; however, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, only drug costs remained significantly different (P  less than  0.001). 

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that a large proportion of CHC patients receiving telaprevir or boceprevir did not complete minimum duration of therapy as per the prescribing information. CHC patients on a DAA regimen also experienced high resource utilization and high medical and drug costs.

Cost utility of telaprevir-PR (peginterferon-ribavirin) versus boceprevir-PR and versus PR alone in chronic hepatitis C in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The hepatitis C virus may lead to cirrhosis, liver cancer, liver transplant, and increased mortality. With standard treatment peginterferon-alpha and ribavirin (PR), sustained viral response (SVR) was less than 50 %. SVR rates improve greatly when PR is combined with telaprevir or boceprevir.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the cost utility of telaprevir-peginterferon-ribavirin (TPR) versus PR and boceprevir-peginterferon-ribavirin (BPR) in treatment-naïve (TN) and treatment-experienced (TE) adults with chronic hepatitis C in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A Markov model with a lifelong time horizon and annual cycles was developed. Clinical data stemmed from phase III trials (TPR vs PR, BPR vs PR). A mixed treatment comparison (MTC) was developed to compare TPR and BPR indirectly. Unit costs and utilities based on EQ-5D were established in a Dutch cross-sectional study. Cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was calculated according to the societal perspective.

RESULTS

Treating TN patients with TPR generates 1.12 additional QALYs with €333 additional cost compared with PR, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of €299/QALY. In TE patients, TPR dominates PR with cost savings (-€7,819) and 1.63 additional QALYs. TPR dominates BPR yielding additional QALYs (0.26 in TN; 0.71 in TE) and cost savings (-€7,296, -€18,144, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

TPR seems a cost-effective alternative to PR in TN patients and dominant in TE patients. TPR was a dominant, more effective and less costly alternative to BPR in both patient types. The cost effectiveness of both TPR and BPR is well below generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds and may be considered cost effective.

[Incidence, management and costs of adverse effects in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir: first 12 weeks of treatment]

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to analyze the incidence, management and cost associated to hematological and dermatological adverse effects (AE) in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy (TT) with telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC).

METHODS

An analysis was made on the data recorded on patients who started treatment with TVR or BOC associated with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin in a 12-week follow-up period.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients were included (TVR n=36; BOC n=17). Thrombocytopenia (83% TVR vs. 88% BOC) followed by neutropenia (89% TVR vs. 82% BOC) were the most common AE. Dermatological AE were observed in 32% of patients. Eleven patients required treatment discontinuation (all of them received TVR), and toxicity was the main reason for discontinuation (64%). The percentage of patients who required supportive treatment for management of AE was 66%. The most used supportive treatment was erythropoietin. Eight patients required emergency health care, and 2 were hospitalized due to AE. Total cost of additional supportive resources was 32,522€ (625 [SD=876]€/patient) (TVR 759 [SD=1,022]€/patient vs. BOC 349 [SD=327]€/patient; P>.05). Patients with gradeiii-iv toxicity required greater supportive care with higher costs, compared to patients with gradei-ii toxicity (849 [SD=1,143]€/patient vs. 387 [SD=397]€/patient; P=.053).

CONCLUSION

The addition of new protease inhibitors to conventional treatment leads to a higher incidence of hematological AE in our study, compared to data described in clinical trials. The elevated incidence of AE involves the use of supportive care, increasing total costs of therapy.

Should we await IFN-free regimens to treat HCV genotype 1 treatment-naive patients? A cost-effectiveness analysis (ANRS 95141)

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In treatment-naive patients mono-infected with genotype 1 chronic HCV, treatments with telaprevir/boceprevir (TVR/BOC)-based triple therapy are standard-of-care. However, more efficacious direct-acting antivirals (IFN-based new DAAs) are available and interferon-free (IFN-free) regimens are imminent (2015).

METHODS

A mathematical model estimated quality-adjusted life years, cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of (i) IFN-based new DAAs vs. TVR/BOC-based triple therapy; and (ii) IFN-based new DAAs initiation strategies, given that IFN-free regimens are imminent. The sustained virological response in F3-4/F0-2 was 71/89% with IFN-based new DAAs, 85/95% with IFN-free regimens, vs. 64/80% with TVR/BOC-based triple therapy. Serious adverse events leading to discontinuation were taken as: 0-0.6% with IFN-based new DAAs, 0% with IFN-free regimens, vs. 1-10% with TVR/BOC-based triple therapy. Costs were €60,000 for 12weeks of IFN-based new DAAs and two times higher for IFN-free regimens.

RESULTS

Treatment with IFN-based new DAAs when fibrosis stage ⩾F2 is cost-effective compared to TVR/BOC-based triple therapy (€37,900/QALY gained), but not at F0-1 (€103,500/QALY gained). Awaiting the IFN-free regimens is more effective, except in F4 patients, but not cost-effective compared to IFN-based new DAAs. If we decrease the cost of IFN-free regimens close to that of IFN-based new DAAs, then awaiting the IFN-free regimen becomes cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with IFN-based new DAAs at stage ⩾F2 is both effective and cost-effective compared to TVR/BOC triple therapy. Awaiting IFN-free regimens and then treating regardless of fibrosis is more efficacious, except in F4 patients; however, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is highly dependent on its cost.

Cost-effectiveness of telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon alpha and ribavirin in treatment-experienced chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients

BACKGROUND

Telaprevir (TVR,T) and boceprevir (BOC,B) are direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) used for the treatment of chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TVR combined with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) alfa-2a plus ribavirin (RBV) compared with Peg-IFN alfa-2a and RBV (PR) alone or BOC plus Peg-IFN alfa-2b and RBV in treatment-experienced patients.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model of chronic genotype 1 HCV disease progression reflected the pathway of experienced patients retreated with DAA therapy. The population was stratified by previous response to treatment (i.e., previous relapsers, partial responders, and null responders). Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates were derived from a mixed-treatment comparison that included results from separate Phase III trials of TVR and BOC. Incremental cost per life year (LY) gained and quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained were computed at lifetime, adopting the NHS perspective. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Sub-group analyses were carried out by interleukin (IL)-28B genotype.

RESULTS

Higher costs and improved outcomes were associated with T/PR relative to PR alone for all experienced patients (ICER of £6079). T/PR was cost-effective for each sub-group population with high SVR advantage in relapsers (ICER of £2658 vs £7593 and £20,875 for partial and null responders). T/PR remained cost-effective regardless of IL-28B sub-type. Compared to B/PR, T/PR prolonged QALYs by 0.57 and reduced lifetime costs by £13,960 for relapsers. For partial responders T/PR was less costly but less efficacious than B/PR, equating to an ICER of £128,117 per QALY gained.

LIMITATIONS

No head-to-head trial provides direct evidence of better efficacy of T/PR vs B/PR.

CONCLUSION

T/PR is cost-effective compared with PR alone in experienced patients regardless of treatment history and IL-28B genotype. Compared to B/PR, T/PR is always cost-saving but only more effective in relapsers.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of triple therapy with protease inhibitors in treatment-naive hepatitis C patients

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis C is the leading cause of chronic liver disease, representing a significant burden in terms of morbidity, mortality and costs. A new scenario of therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection is being established with the approval of two effective HCV protease inhibitors (PIs) in combination with the standard of care (SOC), peginterferon and ribavirin.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to estimate the cost effectiveness of combination therapy with new PIs (boceprevir and telaprevir) plus peginterferon and ribavirin versus SOC in treatment-naive patients with HCV genotype 1 according to data obtained from clinical trials (CTs).

METHODS

A Markov model simulating chronic HCV progression was used to estimate disease treatment costs and effects over patients' lifetimes, in the Spanish national public healthcare system. The target population was treatment-naive patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, demographic characteristics for whom were obtained from the published pivotal CTs SPRINT and ADVANCE. Three options were analysed for each PI based on results from the two CTs: universal triple therapy, interleukin (IL)-28B-guided therapy and dual therapy with peginterferon and ribavirin. A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the uncertainty of certain parameters: age at start of treatment, transition probabilities, drug costs, CT efficacy results and a higher hazard ratio for all-cause mortality for patients with chronic HCV. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also carried out.

RESULTS

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of €2012 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were used as outcome measures. According to the base-case analysis, using dual therapy as the comparator, the alternative IL28B-guided therapy presents a more favorable ICER (€18,079/QALY for boceprevir and €25,914/QALY for telaprevir) than the universal triple therapy option (€27,594/QALY for boceprevir and €33,751/QALY for telaprevir), with an ICER clearly below the efficiency threshold for medical interventions in the Spanish setting. Sensitivity analysis showed that age at the beginning of treatment was an important factor that influenced the ICER. A potential reduction in PI costs would also clearly improve the ICER, and transition probabilities influenced the results, but to a lesser extent. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that 95 % of the simulations presented an ICER below €40,000/QALY. Post hoc estimations of sustained virological responses of the IL28B-guided therapeutic option represented a limitation of the study.

CONCLUSION

The therapeutic options analysed for the base-case cohort can be considered cost-effective interventions for the Spanish healthcare framework. Sensitivity analysis estimated an acceptability threshold of the IL28B-guided strategy of patients younger than 60 years.

Cost-effectiveness of boceprevir or telaprevir for previously treated patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) show that triple therapy (TT) with peginterferon alfa, ribavirin, and boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TVR) is more effective than peginterferon-ribavirin dual therapy (DT) in the treatment of genotype 1 (G1) chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients with previous relapse (RR), partial response (PAR), and null-response (NR). We assess the cost-effectiveness of TT compared to no therapy in the treatment of patients previously treated with G1 CHC.

METHODS

The available published literature provided the data source. The target population was made up of previously treated Caucasian patients with G1 CHC and these were evaluated over a lifetime horizon by Markov model. The study was carried out from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. Outcomes included discounted costs (in euro at 2012 value), life years gained (LYG), quality adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).The robustness of the results was evaluated by one-way deterministic and multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In RR patients, ICER per LYG compared to no therapy was €9555 for BOC-LEAD-IN-RR and €7910 for TVR-LEAD-IN-RR, being BOC dominated by TVR. In PAR patients, ICER for LYG was €11,947 for BOC-LEAD-IN-PAR and €14,931 for TVR-PAR, being TVR cost-effective compared to BOC (ICER for QALY €22,258). In NR patients, ICER for LYG was €26,499 for TVR-LEAD-IN-NR. The models were sensitive to likelihood of sustained virological response and to BOC/TVR prices.

CONCLUSIONS

1st generation HCV PI is highly cost-effective compared to no therapy in RR and PAR G1 CHC patients. TVR dominated BOC in RR, and was cost-effective compared to BOC in PAR patients. In NR patients an assessment of the response after a lead-in period should be performed to improve safety and cost-effectiveness.

Protease inhibitors for hepatitis C: economic implications

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, a blood-borne virus, is the leading cause of chronic liver disease and liver transplantation worldwide. Chronic HCV infection is usually asymptomatic in the early stages of the disease, making an estimation of the total population affected difficult to elicit. The gold standard treatment option to date has been a combination of pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Recent developments have led to the introduction of two protease inhibitors for use in chronic HCV-boceprevir and telaprevir. Phase III studies have shown both agents have the potential to significantly increase the probability of attaining a sustained virologic response (the primary outcome of interest in chronic HCV) in genotype 1 infections. However, the added cost of these agents also presents the need for decision makers to determine their place on drug formularies. The protease inhibitors are to be administered as triple therapy with the existing gold standard. However, significant variation exists as to the proposed duration of triple therapy, use of lead-in pegylated interferon and ribavirin and subsequent pegylated interferon therapy after finishing the course of triple therapy. Treatment algorithms also exist for the use of stopping rules in the case of early non-responders.The aim of this review is to highlight the current understanding of the economic impact protease inhibitors may have on health care systems and considerations required in the treatment of HCV. Economic and health-related quality of life issues are addressed from multiple viewpoints. The major aspects of the economic evaluations, to date, that included triple therapy as an alternative in the treatment of chronic HCV are brought to light. Future economic evaluations in alternative settings would be useful. The review also emphasizes the challenges for future research. This includes the potential for new therapies to no longer require inclusion of pegylated interferon and/or ribavirin, as well as the use of protease inhibitors in non-genotype 1 patients or those with significant co-morbidities such as HIV/AIDS.

Cost-effectiveness of boceprevir in patients previously treated for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 infection in the United States

OBJECTIVES

The phase 3 trial, Serine Protease Inhibitor Boceprevir and PegIntron/Rebetol-2 (RESPOND-2), demonstrated that the addition of boceprevir (BOC) to peginterferon-ribavirin (PR) resulted in significantly higher rates of sustained virologic response (SVR) in previously treated patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype-1 infection as compared with PR alone. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatment with BOC in previously treated patients with chronic hepatitis C in the United States using treatment-related data from RESPOND-2 and PROVIDE studies.

METHODS

We developed a Markov cohort model to project the burden of HCV disease, lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life-years associated with PR and two BOC-based therapies-response-guided therapy (BOC/RGT) and fixed-duration therapy for 48 weeks (BOC/PR48). We estimated treatment-related inputs (efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuations) from clinical trials and obtained disease progression rates, costs, and quality-of-life data from published studies. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for BOC-based regimens as studied in RESPOND-2, as well as by patient's prior response to treatment and the IL-28B genotype.

RESULTS

BOC-based regimens were projected to reduce the lifetime incidence of liver-related complications by 43% to 53% in comparison with treatment with PR. The ICER of BOC/RGT in comparison with that of PR was $30,200, and the ICER of BOC/PR48 in comparison with that of BOC/RGT was $91,500. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000, the probabilities of BOC/RGT and BOC/PR48 being the preferred option were 0.74 and 0.25, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients previously treated for chronic HCV genotype-1 infection, BOC was projected to increase quality-adjusted life-years and reduce the lifetime incidence of liver complications. In addition, BOC-based therapies were projected to be cost-effective in comparison with PR alone at commonly used willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Boceprevir for previously untreated patients with chronic hepatitis C Genotype 1 infection: a US-based cost-effectiveness modeling study

BACKGROUND

SPRINT-2 demonstrated that boceprevir (BOC), an oral hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural 3 (NS3) protease inhibitor, added to peginterferon alfa-2b (P) and ribavirin (R) significantly increased sustained virologic response rates over PR alone in previously untreated adult patients with chronic HCV genotype 1. We estimated the long-term impact of triple therapy vs. dual therapy on the clinical burden of HCV and performed a cost-effectiveness evaluation.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to estimate the incidence of liver complications, discounted costs (2010 US$), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of three treatment strategies for treatment-naïve patients with chronic HCV genotype 1. The model simulates the treatment regimens studied in SPRINT-2 in which PR was administered for 4 weeks followed by: 1) placebo plus PR for 44 weeks (PR48); 2) BOC plus PR using response guided therapy (BOC/RGT); and 3) BOC plus PR for 44 weeks (BOC/PR48) and makes projections within and beyond the trial. HCV-related state-transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from previously published studies. All costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%.

RESULTS

The model projected approximately 38% and 43% relative reductions in the lifetime incidence of liver complications in the BOC/RGT and BOC/PR48 regimens compared with PR48, respectively. Treatment with BOC/RGT is associated with an incremental cost of $10,348 and an increase of 0.62 QALYs compared to treatment with PR48. Treatment with BOC/PR48 is associated with an incremental cost of $35,727 and an increase of 0.65 QALYs compared to treatment with PR48. The ICERs were $16,792/QALY and $55,162/QALY for the boceprevir-based treatment groups compared with PR48, respectively. The ICER for BOC/PR48 compared with BOC/RGT was $807,804.

CONCLUSION

The boceprevir-based regimens used in the SPRINT-2 trial were projected to substantially reduce the lifetime incidence of liver complications and increase the QALYs in treatment-naive patients with hepatitis C genotype 1. It was also demonstrated that boceprevir-based regimens offer patients the possibility of experiencing great clinical benefit with a shorter duration of therapy. Both boceprevir-based treatment strategies were projected to be cost-effective at a reasonable threshold in the US when compared to treatment with PR48.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of boceprevir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection in Portugal

BACKGROUND

The recent approval of two protease inhibitors, boceprevir and telaprevir, is likely to change the management of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the long-term clinical outcomes and the cost effectiveness of therapeutic strategies using boceprevir with peginterferon plus ribavirin (PR) in comparison with PR alone for treating HCV genotype 1 infection in Portugal.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to project the expected lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with PR alone and the treatment strategies outlined by the European Medicines Agency in the boceprevir summary of product characteristics. The boceprevir-based therapeutic strategies differ according to whether or not the patient was previously treated and whether or not the patient had compensated cirrhosis. The model simulated the experience of a series of cohorts of chronically HCV-infected patients (each defined by age, sex, race and fibrosis score). All treatment-related inputs were obtained from boceprevir clinical trials - SPRINT-2, RESPOND-2 and PROVIDE. Estimates of the natural history parameters and health state utilities were based on published studies. Portugal-specific annual direct costs of HCV health states were estimated by convening a panel of experts to derive health state resource use and multiplying the results by national unit costs. The model was developed from a healthcare system perspective with a timeframe corresponding to the remaining duration of the patients' lifetimes. Both future costs and QALYs were discounted at 5 %. To test the robustness of the conclusions, we conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In comparison with the treatment with PR alone, boceprevir-based regimens were projected to reduce the lifetime incidence of advanced liver disease, liver transplantation, and liver-related death by 45-51 % and increase life expectancy by 2.3-4.3 years. Although the addition of BOC increased treatment costs by €13,300-€19,700, the reduction of disease burden resulted in a decrease of €5,400-€9,000 in discounted health state costs and an increase of 0.68-1.23 in discounted QALYs per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the boceprevir-based regimens compared with PR among previously untreated and previously treated patients were €11,600/QALY and €8,700/QALY, respectively. The results were most sensitive to variations in sustained virologic response rates, discount rates and age at treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding boceprevir to PR was projected to reduce the number of liver complications and liver-related deaths, and to be cost effective in treating both previously untreated and treated patients.

The changing face of hepatitis C in the new era of direct-acting antivirals

The approval of the first protease inhibitors as treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is rapidly transforming the way patients with chronic hepatitis C are managed. Treatment regimens are moving to combinations given for shortened periods, excluding poorly tolerated subcutaneous interferon, and providing rates of cure exceeding 75%. The recognition of HCV infection as a systemic disease, not limited to producing liver damage, in which extrahepatic complications play a major role as the cause of morbidity and mortality, is prompting the treatment of a growing number of HCV-infected individuals. However, new challenges are emerging, including the need to diagnose a substantial proportion of asymptomatic carriers, the risk of potentially harmful drug-drug interactions and the high cost of medications. The future will probably see a progressive marginalization of residual HCV populations, with increasing over-representation of illegal immigrants, alcohol abusers, intravenous drug users and the mentally disabled.