A comparison of cost-effectiveness analysis of two strategies – immediate and delayed initiation of treatment of hepatitis C in the Czech Republic

Czech version

Authors: J. Skoupá ¹; P. Urbánek ²
Authors‘ workplace: Czechta Institute, o. p. s., Praha ¹; Interní klinika 1. LF UK a ÚVN – VFN Praha ²
Published in: Gastroent Hepatol 2018; 72(1): 58-65
Category: Hepatology: Original Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.14735/amgh201858

Overview

Background:
Direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) dramatically improve the prognosis of patients with hepatitis C infection (HCV); however, high costs are limiting their wider usage. The aim of the present analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of treating treatment-naive patients with HCV genotype 1 (GT1) when treatment was initiated immediately with that of patients in whom treatment was delayed until the advanced liver fibrosis stage.

Materials and methods:
A health-economic model with a typical structure for HCV infections was adapted to the Czech setting. A cohort of 10,000 patients entered the model and were treated with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir immediately (assessed cohort) or after they had reached the advanced fibrosis stage (comparative cohort). Age and METAVIR distributions reflected those of the Czech Republic. Healthcare costs were considered as the base-case and healthcare and societal costs as the alternative scenario. Efficacy, progression probabilities, and quality of life data were derived from the literature. Outcomes are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY (Quality adjusted life-years). Sensitivity analyses were performed to limit uncertainty.

Results:
In a life-time horizon, the immediate DAA treatment, regardless of disease stage, was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared to delayed treatment. Dominance was seen if only healthcare costs were considered (ICER/QALY –4,414 CZK) as well as when healthcare and societal costs were taken into account (ICER/QALY –214,948 CZK). Immediate treatment prevented 619 events, mainly hepatocellular carcinoma and premature death. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case results.

Conclusion:
A cost-utility analysis is provided, which shows that immediate treatment of newly-diagnosed HCV GT1 patients is dominant in comparison with delayed treatment at the advanced fibrosis stage in a Czech setting. Results are consistent if only direct or healthcare and societal costs are applied.

Key words:
cost-effectiveness – hepatitis C virus infection – direct-acting antiviral agents

Submitted:
16. 11. 2017

Accepted:
20. 12. 2017

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE „uniform requirements“ for biomedical papers.

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

Sources

1. Bedossa P, Poynard T. An algorithm for the grading of activity in chronic hepatitis C. The METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Hepatology 1996; 24 (2): 289–293.

2. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL recommendations on treatment of hepatitis C 2016. J Hepatol 2017; 66 (1): 153–194. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.09.001.

3. Urbánek P, Husa P, Šperl J et al. Standardní diagnostický a terapeutický postup chronické infekce virem hepatitidy C. Gastroent Hepatol 2017; 71 (2): 117–136. doi: 10.14735/amgh2017117.

4. Chahal HS, Merseille EA, Tice JA et al. Cost-effectiveness of early treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 1 by stage of liver fibrosis in a US treatment-naive population. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176 (1): 65–73. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.6011.

5. Leidner AJ, Chesson HW, Xu F et al. Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C treatment for patients in early stages of liver disease. Hepatology 2015; 61 (6): 1860–1869. doi: 10.1002/hep.27736.

6. Obach D, Deuffic-Burban S, Esmat G et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of immediate versus delayed treatment of hepatitis C virus-infected patients in a country with limited resources: the case of Egypt. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 58 (8): 1064–1071. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu 066.

7. Bennett WG, Inoue Y, Beck JR et al. Estimates of the cost-effectiveness of a single course of interferon-alpha 2b in patients with histologically mild chronic hepatitis C. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127 (10): 855–865.

8. Dienstag JL, Ghany MG, Morgan TR et al. A prospective study of the rate of progression in compensated, histologically advanced chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2011; 54 (2): 396–405. doi: 10.1002/hep.24370.

9. Thein H, Yi Q, Dore GJ et al. Estimation of stage-specific fibrosis progression rates in chronic hepatitis C virus infection: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Hepatology 2008; 48 (2): 418–431. doi: 10.1002/hep.22375.

10. Fattovich G, Giustina G, Degos F et al. Morbidity and mortality in compensated cirrhosis type C: a retrospective follow-up study of 384 patients. Gastroenterology 1997; 112 (2): 463–472.

11. Siebert U, Sroczynski G, Wasem J et al. Using competence network collaboration and decision-analytic modeling to assess the cost-effectiveness of interferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin as initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 2005; 6 (2): 112–123.

12. Afdhal N, Zeuzem S, Kwo P et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for untreated HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2014; 370 (20): 1889–1898. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1402454.

13. Kowdley KV, Gordon SC, Reddy KR et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for 8 or 12 weeks for chronic HCV without cirhosis. N Engl J Med 2014; 370 (20): 1879–1888. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1402355.

14. Gilead Sciences SVR12 by metavir score in subjects whose cirrhosis status determined by liver biopsy 2014. Data on file.

15. Razavi H, Waked I, Sarrazin C et al. The present and future disease burden of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with today’s treatment paradigm. J Viral Hepat 2014; 21 (Suppl 1): 34–59. doi: 10.1111/jvh.12248.

16. Český statistický úřad. Úmrtnostní tabulky za ČR, regiony soudržnosti a kraje – 2014–2015. [online]. Dostupné z: https: //www.czso.cz/csu/ czso/umrtnostni-tabulky-za-cr-regiony-soudrznosti-a-kraje.

17. Kind P, Brooks R, Rabin R (eds). EQ-5D concepts and methods. Dordrech: Springer 2006.

18. Wright M, Grieve R, Roberts J et al. Health benefits of antiviral therapy for mild chronic hepatitis C: randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2006; 10 (21): 1–113.

19. Státní ústav pro kontrolu léčiv. Správní řízení č. SUKLS240271/2011 [online]. Dostupné z: http: //www.sukl.cz/modules/procedures/detail.php?spzn=SUKLS240271%2F2011.

20. Český statistický úřad. Mzdy a náklady práce. [online]. Dostupné z: https: //www.czso.cz/csu/czso/prace_a_mzdy_prace.

21. Státní ústav pro kontrolu léčiv. SP-CAU-028. Postup pro posuzování analýzy nákladové efektivity. [online]. Dostupné z: http: //www.sukl.cz/leciva/sp-cau-028?highlightWords=SP-CAU-028.

22. Leidner AJ, Chesson HW, Xu F et al. Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C treatment for patients in early stages of liver disease. Hepatology 2015; 61 (6): 1860–1869. doi: 10.1002/hep.27 736.

23. Chidi AP, Bryce CL, Donohue JM et al. Economic and public health impacts of policies restricting access to hepatitis C treatment for medicaid patients. Value Health 2016; 19 (4): 326–334. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.010.

24. Younossi ZM, Singer ME, Mir HM et al. Impact of interferon free regimens on clinical and cost outcomes for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients. J Hepatol 2014; 60 (3): 530–537. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2013.11.009.

25. Gonzales YS, Ingram A, Lindsay C et al. Early versus delayed hepatitis C treatment provides increased health benefits at lower costs: a UK cost-effectiveness analysis of genotypes 1 and 4 treatment-naïve patients. J Hepatol 2017; 66 (1): S747–S748. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8278 (17) 31988-8.