Pingyu Chen1,2, Min Jin1, Yang Cao1, Hongchao Li3,4. 1. Department of Health Economics, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China. 2. Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China. 3. Department of Health Economics, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China. lihongchao@cpu.edu.cn. 4. Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China. lihongchao@cpu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: All oral direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have shown excellent efficacy and safety in Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC). However, the cost of DAAs used to be expensive; therefore, large numbers of patients had no access to DAAs in China. Recently, prices have been greatly reduced. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) in Chinese CHC patients stratified by hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype (GT), cirrhosis status, and treatment history. METHODS: On the basis of a Chinese healthcare perspective, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the lifetime costs and health outcomes of patients treated with different DAA regimens. Chinese-specific clinical, cost, and utility inputs were obtained or calculated from published sources and expert opinions. Costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported as primary outcomes. Base-case analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: At a willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$30,081/QALY (calculated by three times the GDP per capita in China), SOF/VEL was cost-effective in patients with HCV GT 1, 3, and 6 infections, and the probabilities that SOF/VEL was cost-effective were 9.7-75.7%, 39.1-63.9%, and 35.6-88.0%, respectively. For GT2 patients, noncirrhotic patients, treatment-naïve patients, and treatment-experienced patients, LDV/SOF was the most cost-effective regimen, and the probabilities of cost-effectiveness for each of these groups was 92.1-99.8%, 89.9-99.0%, 61.6-91.2%, and 99.3-100.0%, respectively below the WTP threshold. The GLE/PIB regimen (12-week duration) was the most cost-effective in cirrhotic patients, whereas the probability of its cost-effectiveness varied with that of EBR/GZR (4.1-93.8% versus 6.2-93.3%) below the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, SOF/VEL and LDV/SOF regimens are more likely to be cost-effective among various subgroups of Chinese patients with CHC.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: All oral direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have shown excellent efficacy and safety in Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC). However, the cost of DAAs used to be expensive; therefore, large numbers of patients had no access to DAAs in China. Recently, prices have been greatly reduced. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) in Chinese CHCpatients stratified by hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype (GT), cirrhosis status, and treatment history. METHODS: On the basis of a Chinese healthcare perspective, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the lifetime costs and health outcomes of patients treated with different DAA regimens. Chinese-specific clinical, cost, and utility inputs were obtained or calculated from published sources and expert opinions. Costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported as primary outcomes. Base-case analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: At a willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$30,081/QALY (calculated by three times the GDP per capita in China), SOF/VEL was cost-effective in patients with HCV GT 1, 3, and 6 infections, and the probabilities that SOF/VEL was cost-effective were 9.7-75.7%, 39.1-63.9%, and 35.6-88.0%, respectively. For GT2 patients, noncirrhotic patients, treatment-naïve patients, and treatment-experienced patients, LDV/SOF was the most cost-effective regimen, and the probabilities of cost-effectiveness for each of these groups was 92.1-99.8%, 89.9-99.0%, 61.6-91.2%, and 99.3-100.0%, respectively below the WTP threshold. The GLE/PIB regimen (12-week duration) was the most cost-effective in cirrhotic patients, whereas the probability of its cost-effectiveness varied with that of EBR/GZR (4.1-93.8% versus 6.2-93.3%) below the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, SOF/VEL and LDV/SOF regimens are more likely to be cost-effective among various subgroups of Chinese patients with CHC.
Authors: Hui Jun Zhou; Jing Cao; Hui Shi; Nasheen Naidoo; Sherehe Semba; Pei Wang; Yi Fan Fan; Shui Cheng Zhu Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-12-09