Alexis P Chidi1,2,3, Shari Rogal1,2, Cindy L Bryce1,4, Michael J Fine1,2, Chester B Good1,2,5, Larissa Myaskovsky1,2, Vinod K Rustgi6, Allan Tsung3, Kenneth J Smith1,2. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 2. VA Center for Health Equity Research & Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA. 5. VA Center for Medication Safety, Department of Veterans Affairs, Hines, IL. 6. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Recently approved, interferon-free medication regimens for treating hepatitis C are highly effective, but extremely costly. We aimed to identify cost-effective strategies for managing treatment-naïve U.S. veterans with new hepatitis C medication regimens. We developed a Markov model with 1-year cycle length for a cohort of 60-year-old veterans with untreated genotype 1 hepatitis C seeking treatment in a typical year. We compared using sofosbuvir/ledipasvir or ombitasvir/ritonavir/paritaprevir/dasabuvir to treat: (1) any patient seeking treatment; (2) only patients with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis; or (3) patients with advanced disease first and healthier patients 1 year later. The previous standard of care, sofosbuvir/simeprevir or sofosbuvir/pegylated interferon/ribavirin, was included for comparison. Patients could develop progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma, undergo transplantation, or die. Complications were less likely after sustained virological response. We calculated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and varied model inputs in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We used the Veterans Health Administration perspective with a lifetime time horizon and 3% annual discounting. Treating any patient with ombitasvir-based therapy was the preferred strategy ($35,560; 14.0 QALYs). All other strategies were dominated (greater costs/QALY gained than more effective strategies). Varying treatment efficacy, price, and/or duration changed the preferred strategy. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, treating any patient with ombitasvir-based therapy was cost-effective in 70% of iterations at a $50,000/QALY threshold and 65% of iterations at a $100,000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Managing any treatment-naïve genotype 1 hepatitis C patient with ombitasvir-based therapy is the most economically efficient strategy, although price and efficacy can impact cost-effectiveness. It is economically unfavorable to restrict treatment to patients with advanced disease or use a staged treatment strategy. (Hepatology 2016;63:428-436).
UNLABELLED: Recently approved, interferon-free medication regimens for treating hepatitis C are highly effective, but extremely costly. We aimed to identify cost-effective strategies for managing treatment-naïve U.S. veterans with new hepatitis C medication regimens. We developed a Markov model with 1-year cycle length for a cohort of 60-year-old veterans with untreated genotype 1 hepatitis C seeking treatment in a typical year. We compared using sofosbuvir/ledipasvir or ombitasvir/ritonavir/paritaprevir/dasabuvir to treat: (1) any patient seeking treatment; (2) only patients with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis; or (3) patients with advanced disease first and healthier patients 1 year later. The previous standard of care, sofosbuvir/simeprevir or sofosbuvir/pegylated interferon/ribavirin, was included for comparison. Patients could develop progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma, undergo transplantation, or die. Complications were less likely after sustained virological response. We calculated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and varied model inputs in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We used the Veterans Health Administration perspective with a lifetime time horizon and 3% annual discounting. Treating any patient with ombitasvir-based therapy was the preferred strategy ($35,560; 14.0 QALYs). All other strategies were dominated (greater costs/QALY gained than more effective strategies). Varying treatment efficacy, price, and/or duration changed the preferred strategy. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, treating any patient with ombitasvir-based therapy was cost-effective in 70% of iterations at a $50,000/QALY threshold and 65% of iterations at a $100,000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Managing any treatment-naïve genotype 1 hepatitis Cpatient with ombitasvir-based therapy is the most economically efficient strategy, although price and efficacy can impact cost-effectiveness. It is economically unfavorable to restrict treatment to patients with advanced disease or use a staged treatment strategy. (Hepatology 2016;63:428-436).
Authors: Fred Poordad; Jonathan McCone; Bruce R Bacon; Savino Bruno; Michael P Manns; Mark S Sulkowski; Ira M Jacobson; K Rajender Reddy; Zachary D Goodman; Navdeep Boparai; Mark J DiNubile; Vilma Sniukiene; Clifford A Brass; Janice K Albrecht; Jean-Pierre Bronowicki Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jules L Dienstag; Marc G Ghany; Timothy R Morgan; Adrian M Di Bisceglie; Herbert L Bonkovsky; Hae-Young Kim; Leonard B Seeff; Gyongyi Szabo; Elizabeth C Wright; Richard K Sterling; Gregory T Everson; Karen L Lindsay; William M Lee; Anna S Lok; Chihiro Morishima; Anne M Stoddard; James E Everhart Journal: Hepatology Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Kris V Kowdley; Eric Lawitz; Israel Crespo; Tarek Hassanein; Mitchell N Davis; Michael DeMicco; David E Bernstein; Nezam Afdhal; John M Vierling; Stuart C Gordon; Jane K Anderson; Robert H Hyland; Hadas Dvory-Sobol; Di An; Robert G Hindes; Efsevia Albanis; William T Symonds; M Michelle Berrey; David R Nelson; Ira M Jacobson Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jennifer B Lai; Maxwell A Witt; Mary Patricia Pauly; Joanna Ready; Michael Allerton; Suk Seo; David J Witt Journal: Drugs Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 9.546
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: Holly McCready; Milky Kohno; Michael Kolessar; Laura Dennis; Daniel Kriz; Hannah Luber; Renee Anderson; Michael Chang; Anna Sasaki; Kenneth Flora; Arthur Vandenbark; Suzanne H Mitchell; Jennifer M Loftis; William F Hoffman; Marilyn Huckans Journal: J Neurovirol Date: 2018-10-08 Impact factor: 2.643
Authors: Shan Liu; Paul G Barnett; Mark Holodniy; Jeanie Lo; Vilija R Joyce; Risha Gidwani; Steven M Asch; Douglas K Owens; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2016-10-03