Cost-effectiveness of currently recommended direct-acting antiviral treatments in patients infected with genotypes 1 or 4 hepatitis C virus in the US

Objective: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral therapies currently recommended for treating genotypes (GT) 1 and 4 chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients in the US.

Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for CHC from a US payer’s perspective over a lifelong time horizon was performed. A Markov model based on the natural history of CHC was used for a population that included treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Treatment alternatives considered for GT1 included ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir?+?dasabuvir?±?ribavirin (3D?±?R), sofosbuvir?+?ledipasvir (SOF/LDV), sofosbuvir?+?simeprevir (SOF?+?SMV), simeprevir?+?pegylated interferon/ribavirin (SMV?+?PR) and no treatment (NT). For GT4 treatments, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir?+?ribavirin (2D?+?R), SOF/LDV and NT were compared. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs were obtained from published literature. Outcomes included rates of compensated cirrhosis (CC), decompensated cirrhosis (DCC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver-related death (LrD), total costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and QALYs were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results: In GT1 patients, 3D?±?R and SOF-containing regimens have similar long-term outcomes; 3D?±?R had the lowest lifetime risks of all liver disease outcomes: CC =?30.2%, DCC = 5.0?%, HCC = 6.8%, LT =?1.9% and LrD =?9.2%. In GT1 patients, 3D?±?R had the lowest cost and the highest QALYs. As a result, 3D?±?R dominated these treatment options. In GT4 patients, 2D?+?R had lower rates of liver morbidity and mortality, lower cost and more QALYs than SOF/LDV and NT.

Limitations: While the results are based on input values, which were obtained from a variety of heterogeneous sources—including clinical trials, the findings were robust across a plausible range of input values, as demonstrated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: Among currently recommended treatments for GT1 and GT4 in the US, 3D?±?R (for GT1) and 2D?+?R (for GT4) have a favorable cost-effectiveness profile.     

Cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral regimen ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients infected with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1b in Japan

Objective: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1b (GT1b) therapy ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir (OBV/PTV/r) vs daclatasvir?+?asunaprevir (DCV/ASV) and no treatment in patients without cirrhosis. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) that compared OBV/PTV/r against DCV/ASV and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) in Y93H mutation-negative, GT1b patients with and without cirrhosis were also included.

Methods: A health state transition model was developed to capture the natural history of HCV. A CEA over a lifetime horizon was performed from the perspective of the public healthcare payer in Japan. Costs, health utilities, and rates of disease progression were derived from published studies. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of OBV/PTV/r and DCV/ASV were extracted from Japanese clinical trials. Analyses were performed for treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Alternative scenarios and input parameter uncertainty on the results were tested.

Results: OBV/PTV/r exhibited superior clinical outcomes vs comparators. For OBV/PTV/r, DCV/ASV, and no treatment, the lifetime risk of decompensated cirrhosis in treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis was 0.4%, 1.4%, and 9.2%, and hepatocellular carcinoma was 6.5%, 11.4%, and 49.9%, respectively. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were higher in treatment-naïve and -experienced patients without cirrhosis treated with OBV/PTV/r (16.41 and 16.22) vs DCV/ASV (15.83 and 15.66) or no treatment (11.34 and 11.23). In treatment-naïve and -experienced patients without cirrhosis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of OBV/PTV/r vs DCV/ASV were JPY 1,684,751/QALY and JPY 1,836,596/QALY, respectively; OBV/PTV/r was dominant compared with no treatment. In scenario analysis, including GT1b patients with and without cirrhosis who were Y93H mutation-negative, the ICER of OBV/PTV/r vs DCV/ASV was below the Japanese willingness-to-pay threshold of JPY 5 million/QALY, while the ICER of SOF/LDV vs OBV/PTV/r was above this threshold; thus, OBV/PTV/r was cost-effective.

Conclusion: OBV/PTV/r appears to be a cost-effective treatment for chronic HCV GT1b infection against DCV/ASV. OBV/PTV/r dominates no treatment in patients without cirrhosis.     

Economic evaluation of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir for the treatment of chronic genotype 1 hepatitis c virus infection

Objectives: To estimate clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir?±?ribavirin (OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV) compared with treatment regimens including pegylated interferon (PegIFN) for patients with chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

Methods: An Excel spreadsheet Markov model tracking progression through stages of liver disease was developed. Costs and patient utilities for liver disease stages were taken from published studies. Rates of disease progression were based on studies of untreated HCV infection and long-term follow-up of those achieving sustained virologic response (SVR) after drug treatment. Impact of OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV and other drug regimens on progression was estimated through SVR rates from clinical trials. Analyses were performed for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients. Impact of alternative scenarios and input parameter uncertainty on the results were tested.

Results: For genotype 1 treatment-naive HCV patients, for OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV, PegIFN?+?ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV), sofosbuvir?+?PegIFN/RBV, telaprevir?+?PegIFN/RBV, boceprevir?+?PegIFN/RBV, lifetime risk of decompensated liver disease was 5.6%, 18.9%, 7.4%, 11.7%, and 14.9%; hepatocellular carcinoma was 5.4%, 9.2%, 5.7%, 7.0%, and 7.4%; and death from liver disease was 8.7%, 22.2%, 10.4%, 14.8%, and 17.6%, respectively. Estimates of the cost-effectiveness of OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients indicated that it dominated all other regimens except PegIFN/RBV. Compared with PegIFN/RBV, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £13,864 and £10,258 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, respectively. The results were similar for alternative scenarios and uncertainty analyses.

Limitations: A mixed-treatment comparison for SVR rates for the different treatment regimens was not feasible, because many regimens did not have comparator arms; instead SVR rates were based on those from recent trials.

Conclusions: OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV is a cost-effective oral treatment regimen for chronic genotype 1 HCV infection compared with standard treatment regimens and is estimated to reduce the lifetime risks of advanced liver disease.     

Drug competition and voluntary exit

We use a duration model to find evidence that drug exit is exacerbated by generic competition. However, the impact on drug exit of competition with other branded drugs within a drug's therapeutic class is not statistically significant.