Phil McEwan1, Hayley Bennett, Thomas Ward, Samantha Webster, Jason Gordon, Anupama Kalsekar, Yong Yuan, Michael Brenner. 1. aHEOR, HEOR Ltd, Monmouth bUK HEOR, Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Uxbridge cSwansea Centre for Health Economics, School of Human & Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK dDepartment of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia eWorld Wide Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir in combination with other medicinal products for the treatment of patients with hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 4 and advanced liver disease in the UK. METHODS: A published and validated Markov model designed to simulate the natural history of chronic hepatitis C was used to compare daclatasvir with relevant treatment options for patients with hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 4 and a METAVIR score of F3-F4. Patients were defined according to their treatment status; that is, naive, experienced or interferon ineligible/intolerant. Data inputs for the analysis were derived from published sources, UK-specific where possible. A lifetime horizon was used, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Daclatasvir-based regimens are estimated to be cost-effective versus no treatment and established standard-of-care regimens, including telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon-α+ribavirin (PR), boceprevir in combination with PR and PR alone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range: £3715-£15,408). The cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir-based regimens versus emerging regimens (sofosbuvir or simeprevir based) is less consistent, but was dominant or cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range: £1394-£28,393) in all except two scenarios. CONCLUSION: Daclatasvir-based regimens are expected to be highly cost-effective for the majority patients with advanced disease versus relevant comparator regimens, including newer direct-acting antiviral regimens.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir in combination with other medicinal products for the treatment of patients with hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 4 and advanced liver disease in the UK. METHODS: A published and validated Markov model designed to simulate the natural history of chronic hepatitis C was used to compare daclatasvir with relevant treatment options for patients with hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 4 and a METAVIR score of F3-F4. Patients were defined according to their treatment status; that is, naive, experienced or interferon ineligible/intolerant. Data inputs for the analysis were derived from published sources, UK-specific where possible. A lifetime horizon was used, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS:Daclatasvir-based regimens are estimated to be cost-effective versus no treatment and established standard-of-care regimens, including telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon-α+ribavirin (PR), boceprevir in combination with PR and PR alone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range: £3715-£15,408). The cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir-based regimens versus emerging regimens (sofosbuvir or simeprevir based) is less consistent, but was dominant or cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range: £1394-£28,393) in all except two scenarios. CONCLUSION:Daclatasvir-based regimens are expected to be highly cost-effective for the majority patients with advanced disease versus relevant comparator regimens, including newer direct-acting antiviral regimens.
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: Nwe Ni Than; Anwar Ghazanfar; James Hodson; Nadeem Tehami; Chris Coldham; Hynek Mergental; Derek Manas; Tahir Shah; Philip N Newsome; Helen Reeves; Shishir Shetty Journal: QJM Date: 2017-02-01