COMBINING DISEASE TRANSMISSION AND NUMBERS TREATED IN CONVENTIONAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES OF HEPATITIS C TREATMENT IN THE UK

Author(s)

McEwan P1, Bennett Wilton H2, Webster S2, Kalsekar A3, Yuan Y4, Brenner M5
1Health Economics and Outcomes Research Ltd, Cardiff, UK, 2Health Economics and Outcomes Research Ltd, Monmouth, UK, 3Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA, 4Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Princeton, NJ, USA, 5Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Uxbridge, UK

OBJECTIVES: The goal of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment is the attainment of sustained virologic response (SVR). As the predominant source of infection in the UK is associated with high-risk behaviour among people who inject drugs (PWID), reducing the infected population via treatment may prevent future infections. This study evaluated the health economic impact of two treatment regimens, daclatasvir+sofosbuvir (DCV+SOF) and telaprevir+pegylated interferon-alfa+ribavirin (TVR+PR), in a cohort of people with high transmission risk, when accounting for future infections avoided. METHODS: A combined dynamic HCV transmission and published disease progression model (MONARCH) was populated with published UK data for PWID. Future costs, life years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.5%. A prevalence parameter amongst PWID of 25% was utilised and results presented per 1,000 patients. The impact of treating all (25/1000) or a proportion (8/1000) of patients with DCV+SOF or TVR+PR within a one-year period was evaluated. Published SVR rates of 95% and 59% were applied to DCV+SOF and TVR+PR, respectively. RESULTS: Ignoring future infections, DCV+SOF was associated with incremental per-patient costs of +£18,166 and incremental benefits of +1.4 QALYs and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £9,867 compared to TVR+PR. When considering reduced transmission, additional per-patient discounted cost savings of £8,803 and QALY gains of 1.42 were estimated, from 1,845 future infections and 328 related long-term complications avoided over the period 2015–2065 if all patients were treated. The associated ICER decreased from £9,867 to £2,869. Assuming 8/1000 PWID were treated, the ICER decreased from £9,867 to £8,156. CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for the impact of SVR on future disease transmission can significantly impact cost-effectiveness results in HCV. Factoring in the consequences of infections avoided is imperative when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment among groups at high risk of transmission, such as PWID.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2015-05, ISPOR 2015, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Value in Health, Vol. 18, No. 3 (May 2015)

Code

PIN69

Topic

Economic Evaluation

Topic Subcategory

Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis

Disease

Infectious Disease (non-vaccine)

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×