Due to the possibility to cure the disease, treatment duration in HCV is limited to a maximum of 48 weeks. The lengths of use of direct acting agents (DAA´s) are significantly different: 12 weeks with telaprevir vs. 24, 32 or 44 weeks with boceprevir. These factors make the implementation of futility rules in economic models critical. OBJECTIVES: To provide an insight on the proper application of the futility rules in economic evaluations of DAA´s. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to assess cost-efficacy for each DAA, considering 4 patient types: naïve, relapsers, partial responders, and null responders. Average acquisition costs have been estimated with and without the use of futility rules; if these rules are used, corresponding salvage treatment costs were included. The efficacy of triple therapy treatment was defined by patient type based on each DAA’s summary of product characteristics. Cost per patient with sustained virological response (SVR) and the number of cured and not cured patients was calculated with a fixed budget. RESULTS: For a 10 million EUR investment in each patient type for either DAA, using telaprevir offers maximum cured (726 vs. 587) and minimum non-cured patients (399 vs. 517) if futility rules are not considered. If the futility rules are used, there are still maximum cured patients (759 vs. 734) and minimum non-cured patients (450 vs. 697) when telaprevir is used. We performed one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses and the overall conclusion does not change vs. boceprevir. CONCLUSIONS: Telaprevir offers maximum cured and minimum non-cured patients regardless of the futility rule consideration when compared to boceprevir. If stopping rules are considered in economic evaluations for the treatment of HCV, an appropriate horizon timeline should also be considered to capture future unavoidable costs of non-cured patients: salvage treatment and/or potential disease progression.