Sumeyye Samur1, Brian Kues2, Turgay Ayer2, Mark S Roberts3, Fasiha Kanwal4, Chin Hur5, Drew Michael S Donnell3, Raymond T Chung6, Jagpreet Chhatwal7. 1. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Medicine, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Houston Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Liver Center and Gastrointestinal Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Liver Center and Gastrointestinal Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Liver Center and Gastrointestinal Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: JagChhatwal@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Oral direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment offer new hope to both pre- and post-liver transplant (LT) patients. However, whether to treat HCV patients before vs after LT is not clear because treatment can improve liver function but could reduce the chance of receiving an LT while on the waiting list. Our objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of pre-LT vs post-LT HCV treatment with oral DAAs in decompensated cirrhotic patients on the LT waiting list. METHODS: We used a validated mathematical model that simulated a virtual trial comparing long-term clinical and cost outcomes of pre-LT vs post-LT HCV treatment with oral DAAs. Model parameters were estimated from United Network for Organ Sharing data, SOLAR-1 and 2 trials, and published studies. For each strategy, we estimated the quality-adjusted life-year, life expectancy, cost, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: For lower MELD scores, quality-adjusted life-years were higher with pre-LT HCV treatment compared with post-LT treatment. Pre-LT HCV treatment was cost saving in patients with MELD scores of 15 or less, and cost effective in patients with MELD scores of 16 to 21. In contrast, post-LT HCV treatment was cost effective in patients with MELD scores of 22 to 29 and cost saving if MELD scores were 30 or higher. Results varied by drug prices and by United Network for Organ Sharing regions. CONCLUSIONS: For cirrhotic patients awaiting LT, pre-LT HCV treatment with DAAs is cost effective/saving in patients with MELD scores of 21 or lower, whereas post-LT HCV treatment is cost effective/saving in patients with MELD scores of 22 or higher.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Oral direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment offer new hope to both pre- and post-liver transplant (LT) patients. However, whether to treat HCVpatients before vs after LT is not clear because treatment can improve liver function but could reduce the chance of receiving an LT while on the waiting list. Our objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of pre-LT vs post-LT HCV treatment with oral DAAs in decompensated cirrhotic patients on the LT waiting list. METHODS: We used a validated mathematical model that simulated a virtual trial comparing long-term clinical and cost outcomes of pre-LT vs post-LT HCV treatment with oral DAAs. Model parameters were estimated from United Network for Organ Sharing data, SOLAR-1 and 2 trials, and published studies. For each strategy, we estimated the quality-adjusted life-year, life expectancy, cost, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: For lower MELD scores, quality-adjusted life-years were higher with pre-LT HCV treatment compared with post-LT treatment. Pre-LT HCV treatment was cost saving in patients with MELD scores of 15 or less, and cost effective in patients with MELD scores of 16 to 21. In contrast, post-LT HCV treatment was cost effective in patients with MELD scores of 22 to 29 and cost saving if MELD scores were 30 or higher. Results varied by drug prices and by United Network for Organ Sharing regions. CONCLUSIONS: For cirrhotic patients awaiting LT, pre-LT HCV treatment with DAAs is cost effective/saving in patients with MELD scores of 21 or lower, whereas post-LT HCV treatment is cost effective/saving in patients with MELD scores of 22 or higher.
Authors: Steven M Shechter; Cindy L Bryce; Oguzhan Alagoz; Jennifer E Kreke; James E Stahl; Andrew J Schaefer; Derek C Angus; Mark S Roberts Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2005 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Michael Manns; Didier Samuel; Edward J Gane; David Mutimer; Geoff McCaughan; Maria Buti; Martín Prieto; José Luis Calleja; Markus Peck-Radosavljevic; Beat Müllhaupt; Kosh Agarwal; Peter Angus; Eric M Yoshida; Massimo Colombo; Mario Rizzetto; Hadas Dvory-Sobol; Jill Denning; Sarah Arterburn; Phillip S Pang; Diana Brainard; John G McHutchison; Jean-François Dufour; Hans Van Vlierberghe; Bart van Hoek; Xavier Forns Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Jagpreet Chhatwal; Sumeyye Samur; Brian Kues; Turgay Ayer; Mark S Roberts; Fasiha Kanwal; Chin Hur; Drew Michael S Donnell; Raymond T Chung Journal: Hepatology Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Carrie McAdam-Marx; Lisa J McGarry; Christopher A Hane; Joseph Biskupiak; Baris Deniz; Diana I Brixner Journal: J Manag Care Pharm Date: 2011-09
Authors: Christopher A K Y Chong; Anar Gulamhussein; E Jenny Heathcote; Les Lilly; Morris Sherman; Gary Naglie; Murray Krahn Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: D A Axelrod; M A Schnitzler; T Alhamad; F Gordon; R D Bloom; G P Hess; H Xiao; M Nazzal; D L Segev; V R Dharnidharka; A S Naik; N N Lam; R Ouseph; B L Kasiske; C M Durand; K L Lentine Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Ashton A Shaffer; Alvin G Thomas; Mary Grace Bowring; Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Ayla Cash; Lauren M Kucirka; Saleh A Alqahtani; Ahmet Gurakar; Mark S Sulkowski; Andrew M Cameron; Dorry L Segev; Christine M Durand Journal: Transpl Infect Dis Date: 2018-09-21 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Christian Rupp; Theresa Hippchen; Manuel Neuberger; Peter Sauer; Jan Pfeiffenberger; Wolfgang Stremmel; Daniel Nils Gotthardt; Arianeb Mehrabi; Karl-Heinz Weiss Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-03-28 Impact factor: 5.742