Jagpreet Chhatwal1, Tianhua He2, Maria A Lopez-Olivo3. 1. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 101 Merrimac Street, 10th Floor, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. jagchhatwal@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Tsinghua University School of Medicine, Beijing, China. 3. Department of General Internal Medicine, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are highly effective for hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment. However, their prices have been widely debated. Decision-analytic models can project the long-term value of HCV treatment. Therefore, understanding of the methods used in these models and how they could influence results is important. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to describe and systematically review the methodological approaches in published cost-effectiveness models of chronic HCV treatment with DAAs. DATA SOURCES: We searched several electronic databases, including Medline, Embase and EconLit, from 2011 to 2015. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: Study selection was performed by two reviewers independently. We included any cost-effectiveness analysis comparing DAAs with the old standard of care for HCV treatment. We excluded non-English-language studies and studies not reporting quality-adjusted life-years. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHOD: One reviewer collected data and assessed the quality of reporting, using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Another reviewer crosschecked the abstracted information. The development methods of the included studies were synthetized on the basis of good modelling practice recommendations. RESULTS: Review of 304 citations revealed 36 cost-effectiveness analyses. The reporting quality scores of most articles were rated as acceptable, between 67 and 100 %. The majority of the studies were conducted in Europe (50 %), followed by the USA (44 %). Fifty-six percent of the 36 studies evaluated the cost effectiveness of HCV treatment in both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, 97 % included genotype 1 patients and 53 % evaluated the cost effectiveness of second-generation or oral DAAs in comparison with the previous standard of care or other DAAs. Twenty-one models defined health states in terms of METAVIR fibrosis scores. Only one study used a discrete-event simulation approach, and the remainder used state-transition models. The time horizons varied; however, 89 % of studies used a lifetime horizon. One study was conducted from a societal perspective. Thirty-three percent of studies did not conduct any model validation. We also noted that none of the studies modelled HCV treatment as a prevention strategy, 86 % of models did not consider the possibility of re-infection with HCV after successful treatment, 97 % of studies did not consider indirect economic benefits resulting from HCV treatment and none of the studies evaluating oral DAAs used real-world data. LIMITATIONS: The search was limited by date (from 1 January 2011 to 8 September 2015) and was also limited to English-language and published reports. CONCLUSIONS: Most modelling studies used a similar modelling structure and could have underestimated the value of HCV treatment. Future modelling efforts should consider the benefits of HCV treatment in preventing transmission, extra-hepatic and indirect economic benefits of HCV treatment, real-world cost-effectiveness analysis and cost effectiveness of HCV treatment in low- and middle-income countries.
BACKGROUND: New direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are highly effective for hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment. However, their prices have been widely debated. Decision-analytic models can project the long-term value of HCV treatment. Therefore, understanding of the methods used in these models and how they could influence results is important. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to describe and systematically review the methodological approaches in published cost-effectiveness models of chronic HCV treatment with DAAs. DATA SOURCES: We searched several electronic databases, including Medline, Embase and EconLit, from 2011 to 2015. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: Study selection was performed by two reviewers independently. We included any cost-effectiveness analysis comparing DAAs with the old standard of care for HCV treatment. We excluded non-English-language studies and studies not reporting quality-adjusted life-years. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHOD: One reviewer collected data and assessed the quality of reporting, using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Another reviewer crosschecked the abstracted information. The development methods of the included studies were synthetized on the basis of good modelling practice recommendations. RESULTS: Review of 304 citations revealed 36 cost-effectiveness analyses. The reporting quality scores of most articles were rated as acceptable, between 67 and 100 %. The majority of the studies were conducted in Europe (50 %), followed by the USA (44 %). Fifty-six percent of the 36 studies evaluated the cost effectiveness of HCV treatment in both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, 97 % included genotype 1 patients and 53 % evaluated the cost effectiveness of second-generation or oral DAAs in comparison with the previous standard of care or other DAAs. Twenty-one models defined health states in terms of METAVIR fibrosis scores. Only one study used a discrete-event simulation approach, and the remainder used state-transition models. The time horizons varied; however, 89 % of studies used a lifetime horizon. One study was conducted from a societal perspective. Thirty-three percent of studies did not conduct any model validation. We also noted that none of the studies modelled HCV treatment as a prevention strategy, 86 % of models did not consider the possibility of re-infection with HCV after successful treatment, 97 % of studies did not consider indirect economic benefits resulting from HCV treatment and none of the studies evaluating oral DAAs used real-world data. LIMITATIONS: The search was limited by date (from 1 January 2011 to 8 September 2015) and was also limited to English-language and published reports. CONCLUSIONS: Most modelling studies used a similar modelling structure and could have underestimated the value of HCV treatment. Future modelling efforts should consider the benefits of HCV treatment in preventing transmission, extra-hepatic and indirect economic benefits of HCV treatment, real-world cost-effectiveness analysis and cost effectiveness of HCV treatment in low- and middle-income countries.
Authors: Aikaterini Vellopoulou; Michel van Agthoven; Annemarie van der Kolk; Robert J de Knegt; Gilles Berdeaux; Sandrine Cure; Florence Bianic; Mark Lamotte Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Richard Pitman; David Fisman; Gregory S Zaric; Maarten Postma; Mirjam Kretzschmar; John Edmunds; Marc Brisson Journal: Value Health Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: David M Eddy; William Hollingworth; J Jaime Caro; Joel Tsevat; Kathryn M McDonald; John B Wong Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Nezam Afdhal; K Rajender Reddy; David R Nelson; Eric Lawitz; Stuart C Gordon; Eugene Schiff; Ronald Nahass; Reem Ghalib; Norman Gitlin; Robert Herring; Jacob Lalezari; Ziad H Younes; Paul J Pockros; Adrian M Di Bisceglie; Sanjeev Arora; G Mani Subramanian; Yanni Zhu; Hadas Dvory-Sobol; Jenny C Yang; Phillip S Pang; William T Symonds; John G McHutchison; Andrew J Muir; Mark Sulkowski; Paul Kwo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
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: T Joseph Mattingly; Julia F Slejko; Eleanor M Perfetto; Shyamasundaran Kottilil; C Daniel Mullins Journal: Patient Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Ángela Rojas; Jose A Del Campo; Sophie Clement; Matthieu Lemasson; Marta García-Valdecasas; Antonio Gil-Gómez; Isidora Ranchal; Birke Bartosch; Juan D Bautista; Arielle R Rosenberg; Francesco Negro; Manuel Romero-Gómez Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Torbjørn Wisløff; Richard White; Olav Dalgard; Ellen J Amundsen; Hinta Meijerink; Astrid Louise Løvlie; Hilde Kløvstad Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 4.981