UNLABELLED: Treatment guidance for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) released by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) offers two options for interferon (IFN)-ineligible/intolerant individuals with genotype 1 infection: sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SOF/RBV) for 24 weeks or sofosbuvir/simeprevir (SOF/SMV) for 12 weeks. A 24-week course of SOF/RBV costs approximately US$169,000, with sustained virologic response (SVR) rates ranging from 52% to 84%; 12 weeks of SOF/SMV costs approximately $150,000, with SVR between 89% and 100%. Because SOF/SMV is currently used off-label, debate exists among physicians and payers about whether it should be prescribed and covered. This article presents a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two treatment regimens accounting for costs of drugs, treatment-related medical care, retreatment for individuals who do not achieve SVR, and natural history of continued HCV infection after failed retreatment. Analysis uses a Markov model with a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective. In the base-case scenario, SOF/SMV dominated SOF/RBV in a modeled 50-year-old cohort of treatment-naïve and -experienced subjects, excluding those who failed earlier therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir. SOF/SMV yielded lower costs and more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the average subject, compared to SOF/RBV ($165,336 and 14.69 QALYs vs. $243,586 and 14.45 QALYs, respectively). In base-case cost analysis, the SOF/SMV treatment strategy saved $91,590 per SVR, compared to SOF/RBV. Under all one-way sensitivity scenarios, SOF/SMV remained dominant and resulted in cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a 12-week course of SOF/SMV is a more cost-effective treatment for genotype 1 CHC than 24 weeks of SOF/RBV among IFN-ineligible/intolerant individuals, supporting the AASLD/IDSA guidance and offering implications for both clinical and regulatory decision making as well as pharmaceutical pricing.
UNLABELLED: Treatment guidance for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) released by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) offers two options for interferon (IFN)-ineligible/intolerant individuals with genotype 1 infection: sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SOF/RBV) for 24 weeks or sofosbuvir/simeprevir (SOF/SMV) for 12 weeks. A 24-week course of SOF/RBV costs approximately US$169,000, with sustained virologic response (SVR) rates ranging from 52% to 84%; 12 weeks of SOF/SMV costs approximately $150,000, with SVR between 89% and 100%. Because SOF/SMV is currently used off-label, debate exists among physicians and payers about whether it should be prescribed and covered. This article presents a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two treatment regimens accounting for costs of drugs, treatment-related medical care, retreatment for individuals who do not achieve SVR, and natural history of continued HCV infection after failed retreatment. Analysis uses a Markov model with a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective. In the base-case scenario, SOF/SMV dominated SOF/RBV in a modeled 50-year-old cohort of treatment-naïve and -experienced subjects, excluding those who failed earlier therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir. SOF/SMV yielded lower costs and more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the average subject, compared to SOF/RBV ($165,336 and 14.69 QALYs vs. $243,586 and 14.45 QALYs, respectively). In base-case cost analysis, the SOF/SMV treatment strategy saved $91,590 per SVR, compared to SOF/RBV. Under all one-way sensitivity scenarios, SOF/SMV remained dominant and resulted in cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a 12-week course of SOF/SMV is a more cost-effective treatment for genotype 1 CHC than 24 weeks of SOF/RBV among IFN-ineligible/intolerant individuals, supporting the AASLD/IDSA guidance and offering implications for both clinical and regulatory decision making as well as pharmaceutical pricing.
Authors: Cathey H Cawthorne; Kelly R Rudat; Mary S Burton; Kyle E Brown; Bruce A Luxon; Christine G Janney; Claus J Fimmel Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Kristi L Berger; Ibtissem Triki; Mireille Cartier; Martin Marquis; Marie-Josée Massariol; Wulf O Böcher; Yakov Datsenko; Gerhard Steinmann; Joseph Scherer; Jerry O Stern; George Kukolj Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: B J Veldt; G Saracco; N Boyer; C Cammà; A Bellobuono; U Hopf; I Castillo; O Weiland; F Nevens; B E Hansen; S W Schalm Journal: Gut Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Eric Lawitz; Fred F Poordad; Phillip S Pang; Robert H Hyland; Xiao Ding; Hongmei Mo; William T Symonds; John G McHutchison; Fernando E Membreno Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Nelly Mateeva; Suresh V K Eyunni; Kinfe K Redda; Ucheze Ononuju; Tony D Hansberry; Cecilia Aikens; Anita Nag Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 2.823
Authors: James Salazar; Varun Saxena; James G Kahn; John P Roberts; Neil Mehta; Michael Volk; Jennifer C Lai Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Andrew J Leidner; Harrell W Chesson; Philip R Spradling; Scott D Holmberg Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Alexis P Chidi; Cindy L Bryce; Julie M Donohue; Michael J Fine; Douglas P Landsittel; Larissa Myaskovsky; Shari S Rogal; Galen E Switzer; Allan Tsung; Kenneth J Smith Journal: Value Health Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Stuart C Gordon; Lois E Lamerato; Loralee B Rupp; Scott D Holmberg; Anne C Moorman; Philip R Spradling; Eyasu Teshale; Fujie Xu; Joseph A Boscarino; Vinutha Vijayadeva; Mark A Schmidt; Nancy Oja-Tebbe; Mei Lu Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 10.864