Leidner Andrew J, Chesson Harrell W, Xu Fujie, Ward John W, Spradling Philip R, Holmberg Scott D
Division of Viral Hepatitis, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Hepatology. 2015 Jun;61(6):1860-9. doi: 10.1002/hep.27736. Epub 2015 Mar 16.
New treatments for hepatitis C virus (HCV) may be highly effective but are associated with substantial costs that may compel clinicians and patients to consider delaying treatment. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of these treatments with a focus on patients in early stages of liver disease. We developed a state-transition (or Markov) model to calculate costs incurred and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained following HCV treatment, and we computed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per QALY gained, in 2012 US dollars) for treatment at different stages of liver disease versus delaying treatment until the subsequent liver disease stage. Our analysis did not include the potential treatment benefits associated with reduced non-liver-related mortality or preventing HCV transmission. All parameter values, particularly treatment cost, were varied in sensitivity analyses. The base case scenario represented a 55-year-old patient with genotype 1 HCV infection with a treatment cost of $100,000 and treatment effectiveness of 90%. In this scenario, for a 55-year-old patient with moderate liver fibrosis (Metavir stage F2), the cost-effectiveness of immediately initiating treatment at F2 (versus delaying treatment until F3) was $37,300/QALY. For patients immediately treated at F0 (versus delaying treatment until F1), the threshold of treatment costs that yielded $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY cost-effectiveness ratios were $22,200 and $42,400, respectively.
Immediate treatment of HCV-infected patients with moderate and advanced fibrosis appears to be cost-effective, and immediate treatment of patients with minimal or no fibrosis can be cost-effective as well, particularly when lower treatment costs are assumed.
丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)的新疗法可能非常有效,但成本高昂,这可能促使临床医生和患者考虑推迟治疗。本研究调查了这些疗法的成本效益,重点关注肝病早期患者。我们开发了一种状态转换(或马尔可夫)模型,以计算HCV治疗后产生的成本和获得的质量调整生命年(QALY),并计算了不同肝病阶段治疗与推迟治疗至后续肝病阶段相比的增量成本效益比(每获得一个QALY的成本,以2012年美元计)。我们的分析未包括与降低非肝脏相关死亡率或预防HCV传播相关的潜在治疗益处。在敏感性分析中,所有参数值,特别是治疗成本,均有所变化。基础病例情景代表一名55岁的1型HCV感染患者,治疗成本为10万美元,治疗有效率为90%。在这种情景下,对于一名患有中度肝纤维化(梅塔维分级F2)的55岁患者,在F2阶段立即开始治疗(与推迟治疗至F3阶段相比)的成本效益为每QALY 37,300美元。对于在F0阶段立即接受治疗的患者(与推迟治疗至F1阶段相比),产生每QALY 50,000美元和100,000美元成本效益比的治疗成本阈值分别为22,200美元和42,400美元。
对中度和重度纤维化的HCV感染患者立即进行治疗似乎具有成本效益,对轻度或无纤维化的患者立即进行治疗也可能具有成本效益,特别是在假设治疗成本较低的情况下。