Literature DB >> 23329380

Assessing the cost utility of response-guided therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 in the UK using the MONARCH model.

Phil McEwan1, Ray Kim, Yong Yuan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: European guidelines advocate the measurement of on-treatment hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA in order to determine optimal therapy duration (response-guided therapy [RGT]) in patients with rapid virological response (RVR) or delayed virological response (DVR). Treatment response is highly dependent upon the extent of liver fibrosis yet there is little evidence quantifying the cost effectiveness of RGT particularly conditional upon fibrosis stage.
OBJECTIVE: This study describes an economic model designed to assess the costs and benefits of RGT compared with standard duration of therapy (SDT) in hepatitis C virus genotype 1 patients.
METHODS: A Markov cohort simulation model with lifetime perspective was developed to undertake a cost utility analysis of RGT in the UK. Patients entered the model at Metavir disease stages F0-F4, and progressed through these stages via age and duration of HCV infection-dependent transition probabilities. Treated patients were partitioned according to virological response and shortened or extended duration of therapy was applied following European guidelines.
RESULTS: For all patients, SDT and RGT was associated with an increase of 2.14 and 2.20 QALYs and £2,374 and £2,270 costs, respectively, compared with no treatment. Overall, RGT was a dominant scenario being associated with a lower risk of complications, increased QALYs (0.08) and cost saving (£101). RGT across fibrosis stages was either highly cost effective or dominant; in all cases RGT was associated with an increase in QALYs, driven by a reduction in complications in DVR subjects and reduced exposure to treatment disutility in RVR subjects; costs were lower in F1 and F2 fibrosis stages. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, overall RGT across fibrosis stages F2-F4 were associated with the highest probability of being cost effective. At this threshold, the probability of reduced/extended therapy in RVR/DVR patients being cost effective is 0.35 and 0.88, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that the treatment of HCV genotype 1 patients in fibrosis stage F2 has the greatest potential for maximizing health benefit and cost saving within an RGT protocol. Predicting those patients most likely to respond to treatments is important from both a clinical and cost perspective and the tailoring of treatment duration with the current standard of care is likely to remain a priority for payers with budgetary constraints.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23329380     DOI: 10.1007/s40258-012-0002-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy        ISSN: 1175-5652            Impact factor:   2.561


  16 in total

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

Authors:  Ru Han; Clément François; Mondher Toumi
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.561

2.  Value of Sustained Virologic Response in Patients with Hepatitis C as a Function of Time to Progression of End-Stage Liver Disease.

Authors:  Thomas Ward; Jason Gordon; Beverley Jones; Hayley Bennett; Samantha Webster; Anupama Kalsekar; Yong Yuan; Michael Brenner; Phil McEwan
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.859

3.  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.

Authors:  Umberto Restelli; Alfredo Alberti; Adriano Lazzarin; Marzia Bonfanti; Carmela Nappi; Davide Croce
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-12-22

4.  Uptake of hepatitis C screening, characteristics of patients tested, and intervention costs in the BEST-C study.

Authors:  Joanne E Brady; Danielle K Liffmann; Anthony Yartel; Natalie Kil; Alex D Federman; Joseph Kannry; Cynthia Jordan; Omar I Massoud; David R Nerenz; Kimberly A Brown; Bryce D Smith; Claudia Vellozzi; David B Rein
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 17.425

5.  Hepatitis C disease transmission and treatment uptake: impact on the cost-effectiveness of new direct-acting antiviral therapies.

Authors:  Hayley Bennett; Jason Gordon; Beverley Jones; Thomas Ward; Samantha Webster; Anupama Kalsekar; Yong Yuan; Michael Brenner; Phil McEwan
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-11-01

6.  Estimating the clinical and economic benefit associated with incremental improvements in sustained virologic response in chronic hepatitis C.

Authors:  Phil McEwan; Thomas Ward; Hayley Bennett; Anupama Kalsekar; Samantha Webster; Michael Brenner; Yong Yuan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Assessing the Long-Term Impact of Treating Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)-Infected People Who Inject Drugs in the UK and the Relationship between Treatment Uptake and Efficacy on Future Infections.

Authors:  Hayley Bennett; Phil McEwan; Daniel Sugrue; Anupama Kalsekar; Yong Yuan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Regional disparities in interferon therapy for chronic hepatitis C in Japan: a nationwide retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Naohiko Masaki; Yoko Yamagiwa; Takuro Shimbo; Kazumoto Murata; Masaaki Korenaga; Tatsuya Kanto; Masashi Mizokami
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Retrospective hepatitis C seroprevalence screening in the antenatal setting-should we be screening antenatal women?

Authors:  Chloe Orkin; Anna Jeffery-Smith; Graham R Foster; C Y William Tong
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Health state utilities associated with attributes of treatments for hepatitis C.

Authors:  Louis S Matza; Sandhya J Sapra; John F Dillon; Anupama Kalsekar; Evan W Davies; Mary K Devine; Jessica B Jordan; Amanda S Landrian; David H Feeny
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-12-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.