Ann Intern Med. 2015 Mar 17;162(6):407-19. doi: 10.7326/M14-1152.
New regimens for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have shorter treatment durations and increased rates of sustained virologic response compared with existing therapies but are extremely expensive.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these treatments under different assumptions about their price and efficacy.
Discrete-event simulation.
Published literature.
Treatment-naive patients infected with chronic HCV genotype 1, 2, or 3.
Lifetime.
Societal.
Usual care (boceprevir-ribavirin-pegylated interferon [PEG]) was compared with sofosbuvir-ribavirin-PEG and 3 PEG-free regimens: sofosbuvir-simeprevir, sofosbuvir-daclatasvir, and sofosbuvir-ledipasvir. For genotypes 2 and 3, usual care (ribavirin-PEG) was compared with sofosbuvir-ribavirin, sofosbuvir-daclatasvir, and sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin (genotype 3 only).
Discounted costs (in 2014 U.S. dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Assuming sofosbuvir, simeprevir, daclatasvir, and ledipasvir cost $7000, $5500, $5500, and $875 per week, respectively, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir was cost-effective for genotype 1 and cost $12 825 more per QALY than usual care. For genotype 2, sofosbuvir-ribavirin and sofosbuvir-daclatasvir cost $110 000 and $691 000 per QALY, respectively. For genotype 3, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin cost $73 000 per QALY, sofosbuvir-ribavirin was more costly and less effective than usual care, and sofosbuvir-daclatasvir cost more than $396 000 per QALY at assumed prices.
Sofosbuvir-ledipasvir was the optimal strategy in most simulations for genotype 1 and would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $5500. For genotype 2, sofosbuvir-ribavirin-PEG would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $2250 per week. For genotype 3, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $1500 per week.
Data are lacking on real-world effectiveness of new treatments and some prices.
From a societal perspective, novel treatments for HCV are cost-effective compared with usual care for genotype 1 and probably genotype 3 but not for genotype 2.
CVS Health.
与现有疗法相比,新的丙型肝炎病毒 (HCV) 治疗方案具有更短的治疗持续时间和更高的持续病毒学应答率,但价格极其昂贵。
根据不同的价格和疗效假设,评估这些治疗方法的成本效益。
离散事件模拟。
已发表的文献。
未经治疗的慢性 HCV 基因型 1、2 或 3 感染患者。
终生。
社会视角。
与 boceprevir-ribavirin-PEG 相比,通常的治疗方法(聚乙二醇干扰素)被比较为 sofosbuvir-ribavirin-PEG 和 3 种无聚乙二醇方案:sofosbuvir-simeprevir、sofosbuvir-daclatasvir 和 sofosbuvir-ledipasvir。对于基因型 2 和 3,与 ribavirin-PEG 相比,通常的治疗方法(sofosbuvir-ribavirin)被比较为 sofosbuvir-daclatasvir 和 sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin(仅基因型 3)。
贴现成本(2014 年美元)、质量调整生命年 (QALY) 和增量成本效益比。
假设索非布韦、simeprevir、daclatasvir 和 ledipasvir 的周成本分别为 7000 美元、5500 美元、5500 美元和 875 美元,sofosbuvir-ledipasvir 对基因型 1 具有成本效益,与常规治疗相比,每 QALY 多花费 12825 美元。对于基因型 2,sofosbuvir-ribavirin 和 sofosbuvir-daclatasvir 的成本分别为每 QALY 110000 美元和 691000 美元。对于基因型 3,sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin 的成本为每 QALY 73000 美元,sofosbuvir-ribavirin 的成本高于常规治疗,效果较差,而 sofosbuvir-daclatasvir 的成本在假设价格下超过 396000 美元/ QALY。
对于基因型 1,索非布韦-ledipasvir 是大多数模拟中的最佳策略,如果索非布韦的价格低于 5500 美元,它将具有成本效益。对于基因型 2,如果索非布韦的价格低于每周 2250 美元,sofosbuvir-ribavirin-PEG 将具有成本效益。对于基因型 3,如果索非布韦的价格低于每周 1500 美元,sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin 将具有成本效益。
新疗法的实际疗效和一些价格的数据缺乏。
从社会角度来看,与常规治疗相比,新型 HCV 治疗方法在基因型 1 和可能的基因型 3 中具有成本效益,但在基因型 2 中则不然。
CVS 健康。