Cost-effectiveness analysis of simeprevir in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin for treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients in Japan

Abstract

Aim:

Simeprevir (SMV), a protease inhibitor, recently became available for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C (HCV) genotype 1 patients in Japan. The introduction of triple therapy using SMV in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) significantly improves the cure rate. The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SMV with PR (SMV/PR) compared to telaprevir with PR (TVR/PR), PR alone, or no treatment in treatment-naïve patients in Japan.     

Cost-minimization comparison of darunavir plus ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1 infected treatment-naïve women of childbearing age

Background:

Guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services in the US recommend ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) as a preferred protease inhibitor (PI) for HIV-positive antiretroviral-na?ve pregnant women. These guidelines also cite ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV?+?RTV) as an alternative PI in this clinical scenario. The purpose of this analysis was to compare economic outcomes for regimens based on these two treatments.

Study design:

An existing discrete event simulation (DES) model was adapted to conduct a cost-minimization analysis comparing the two regimens in HIV-infected women of childbearing age (WOCBA), from the perspective of a healthcare payer in the US.

Methods:

The DES model was used to represent disease states, health events, healthcare encounters, pregnancy, and treatment choices in HIV-infected WOCBA starting treatment with regimens based on either LPV/r or DRV?+?RTV. It also incorporated parameters for individual patient characteristics, and for antiretroviral (ARV) treatment effectiveness, treatment sequencing, clinical progression, and resource use. Potential events included scheduled physician visits; viral suppression; viral rebound; AIDS-related complications; CHD events; treatment discontinuation and switching; ARV treatment side-effects (SE); and death. The primary outcomes were discounted 5-year and 10-year healthcare costs. Alternative scenarios considered different rates of switching from DRV?+?RTV to LPV/r upon conception.

Results:

Compared with DRV?+?RTV, LPV/r was associated with similar clinical outcomes while offering savings at the 5- and 10-year horizons (of $24,904 and $43,502 per patient, respectively), and in extensive sensitivity analyses. The main driver of the savings was the difference in cost between PIs.

Conclusions:

Starting HIV-infected ARV-treatment-na?ve WOCBA on an LPV/r-based regimen is cost-saving and provides similar patient outcomes compared to a DRV?+?RTV-based regimen.     

A network meta-analysis to compare simeprevir with boceprevir and telaprevir in combination with peginterferon-α and ribavirin in patients infected with genotype 1 Hepatitis C virus

Abstract

Objective:

To conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy and safety of simeprevir, a second generation oral protease inhibitor (PI), compared to telaprevir and boceprevir in combination with pegylated interferon-α and ribavirin (PR) in patients with chronic hepatitis C.     

Economic and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) comparison of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and atazanavir plus ritonavir (ATV+RTV) based regimens for antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve and -experienced United Kingdom patients in 2011

Abstract

Background:

Using a United Kingdom (UK)-based National Health Services perspective for 2011 this study first estimated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact implications for lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) vs atazanavir plus ritonavir (ATV+RTV) treatment of antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve patients and secondly examined the long-term health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and economic implications for LPV/r vs ATV+RTV treatment of ART-experienced patients.

Methods:

A previously published Markov model that integrates epidemiological data of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with predictors of coronary heart disease (CHD) was modified under a clearly specified set of assumptions to reflect viral load (VL) suppression profiles and other differences for these two regimens, applying results from the CASTLE study in ART-naïve patients and using data from BMS-045 in ART-experienced patients. ART costs were referenced to current (2011) pricing guidelines in the UK. Medical care costs reflected UK treatment patterns and relevant drug pricing. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per year. Costs are expressed in British pounds (£) and life expectancy in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Results:

In the ART-naïve subjects, the model predicted a marginal improved life expectancy of 0.031 QALYs (11 days) for the ATV+RTV regimen as a result of predicted CHD outcomes based on lower increases in cholesterol levels compared with the LPV/r regimen. The model demonstrated cost savings with the LPV/r regimen. The total lifetime cost savings was £4070 per patient for the LPV/r regimen. LPV/r saved £2133 and £3409 per patient at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Referenced to LPV/r, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ATV+RTV was £149,270/QALY. For ART-experienced patients VL suppression differences favored LPV/r, while CHD risk associated with elevated total cholesterol marginally favored ATV+RTV, resulting in a net improvement in life expectancy of 0.31 QALYs (106 days) for LPV/r. Five-year costs were £5538 per patient greater for ATV+RTV, with a discounted lifetime saving of £1445 per LPV/r patient. LPV/r was modestly dominant economically, producing better outcomes and cost savings.

Limitations:

The limitations of this study include uncertainty related to how well the model’s assumptions capture current practice, as well as the validity of the model parameters used. This study was limited to using aggregated data in the public domain from the two clinical trials. Thus, some of the model parameters may reflect limitations due to trial design and data aggregation bias. This study has attempted to illuminate the effect of these limitations by presenting the results of the comprehensive sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions:

Based on 2011 costs of HIV in the UK and the published efficacy data from the CASTLE and BMS-045 studies, ATV+RTV-based regimens are not expected to be a cost-effective use of resources for ART-naïve patients similar to patients in the CASTLE study, nor for ART-experienced patients based on the only published comparison of ATV+RTV and LPV/r.     

A cost utility analysis of simeprevir used with peginterferon + ribavirin in the management of genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection,from the perspective of the UK National Health Service

Abstract

Introduction:

Triple therapy using a protease inhibitor (PI) with peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) is increasingly used in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The most recently introduced PI, simeprevir (SMV), offers high levels of viral eradication combined with a reduced overall duration of therapy. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of SMV?+?PR vs PR alone or in combination with telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC) in patients infected with genotype 1 HCV     

Number needed to treat and associated incremental costs of treatment with enzalutamide versus abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Objective: Enzalutamide (ENZA) and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) are approved second-generation hormone therapies for chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study compared ENZA with AA in chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC by calculating the number needed to treat (NNT) and associated incremental costs to achieve one additional chemotherapy-naïve patient with mCRPC free of radiographic progression, chemotherapy, or death over a 1-year time horizon.

Methods: Clinical outcomes were obtained from the PREVAIL and COU-AA-302 trials. Three outcomes were evaluated: radiographic progression-free survival, time to cytotoxic chemotherapy initiation, and overall survival at 1 year. NNT was calculated as the reciprocal of the outcome event rate difference for ENZA compared with AA. The incremental costs to achieve one additional outcome at 1 year were calculated as the difference in cost per treated patient multiplied by the NNT. Per-treated-patient costs were considered from a US payer perspective and included medications, monitoring, adverse events, post-progression treatments, and end-of-life care.

Results: Within a 1-year time horizon, the total cost per treated patient for ENZA was $2,666 less than AA. Compared with AA, treating 14 patients with ENZA resulted in one additional patient free of progression or death over 1 year; treating 26 patients with ENZA resulted in one additional patient with chemotherapy delayed over 1 year; and treating 91 patients with ENZA resulted in one additional patient free of death over 1 year. Therefore, ENZA is cost-effective compared with AA for all three outcomes evaluated, and the modeled results suggest ENZA is associated with potentially improved clinical outcomes in delaying chemotherapy initiation and disease progression for chemotherapy-naïve patients. The results are robust in sensitivity analyses, where the effect of changes in key model inputs and assumptions were tested.

Conclusion: The results modeled in the present study suggest ENZA is cost-effective compared with AA for treating chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC.