OBJECTIVES: Hepatitis C is an infection that when left untreated or unsuccessfully treated, progresses into Advanced Liver Disease (ALD) associated with a high clinical, humanistic and economic burden. Due to limited economic resources, healthcare providers may have to choose whether to treat F2 patients with PR alone vs. Telaprevir plus PR (TPR). This publication aims to demonstrate the clinical and economic value of treating naïve F2 patients with TPR, a triple based regimen compared to PR alone. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of the phase III ADVANCE was conducted and NNT were calculated.  Cost-effectiveness of TPR vs. PR in F2 patients was determined based on a UK economic model. A cost per cure (SVR) model analyzed the number of cured patients with TPR vs PR and number of patients treated but not cured.  RESULTS: NNT in F2 patients was estimated to be 3.3.  In previously untreated F2 fibrosis patients, TPR was associated with higher costs and improved outcomes compared to PR with an Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of £ 9,930/ QALY.  Treating 100 F2 patients with TPR results in 79 cured patients compared with only 49 cured patients with PR. In order to achieve cure in 50 patients, 13 patients would be treated but not cured with TPR compared to 52 treated but not cured with PR alone. With a million £ investment with TPR only 7 patients are not cured compared to 53 patients with PR alone. CONCLUSIONS: TPR provides clinical and economic value for F2 untreated patients. It is clinically superior treatment versus PR, is a cost-effective treatment option and within a fixed budget choosing TPR instead of PR results in more patients cured and in less treatment failures.