• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

达卡他韦+索非布韦+利巴韦林(16 周和 12 周)与索非布韦+利巴韦林(16 周和 24 周)治疗意大利丙型肝炎病毒基因型 3 肝硬化患者的成本效益分析。

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of daclatasvir + sofosbuvir + ribavirin (16 weeks and 12 weeks) vs sofosbuvir + ribavirin (16 weeks and 24 weeks) for the treatment of cirrhotic patients affected with hepatitis C virus genotype 3 in Italy.

机构信息

School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Centre for Research on Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management (CREMS)-LIUC-Carlo Cattaneo Univerity, Castellanza, VA, Italy.

出版信息

Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Jan;19(1):37-44. doi: 10.1007/s10198-016-0865-3. Epub 2016 Dec 22.

DOI:10.1007/s10198-016-0865-3
PMID:28008546
Abstract

The WHO estimates that more than 185 million people are infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) worldwide. The aim of the study is to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the use of daclatasvir (DCV) + sofosbuvir (SOF) + ribavirin (RBV) for 12 and 16 weeks vs SOF + RBV for 16 and 24 weeks for the treatment of genotype 3 HCV infected cirrhotic patients from the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A published cohort-based Markov model was used to perform the analysis estimating the lifetime direct medical costs associated with the management of the pathology and the quality adjusted life years gained by patients. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. SOF + RBV for 16 weeks was excluded from the analysis due to the significant lower effectiveness, compared with SOF + RBV for 24 weeks (51% vs 79%). DCV + SOF + RBV would increase QALYs and costs in all the comparisons: the ICERs obtained comparing DCV + SOF + RBV for 12 and 16 weeks with SOF + RBV for 24 weeks (reference scenario) are 38,572 €/QALY and 16,436 €/QALY, respectively, both below the 40,000 €/QALY threshold identified by the Italian Health Economics Association. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. The use of DCV + SOF + RBV is likely to be cost-effective compared with SOF + RBV (for 24 weeks) for the treatment of cirrhotic patients infected with genotype 3 HCV considering a threshold value of 40,000 €/QALY.

摘要

世界卫生组织估计,全球有超过 1.85 亿人感染丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)。本研究旨在评估从意大利国家卫生服务体系(NHS)的角度来看,使用达卡他韦(DCV)+索磷布韦(SOF)+利巴韦林(RBV)治疗 12 周和 16 周与 SOF+RBV 治疗 16 周和 24 周的增量成本效益比(ICER)。使用已发表的基于队列的马尔可夫模型进行分析,估计与该疾病管理相关的终生直接医疗成本和患者获得的质量调整生命年。进行确定性和概率敏感性分析以测试结果的稳健性。SOF+RBV 治疗 16 周由于与 SOF+RBV 治疗 24 周相比,效果显著降低(51%比 79%)而被排除在分析之外。在所有比较中,使用 DCV+SOF+RBV 治疗 12 周和 16 周都会增加 QALYs 和成本:与 SOF+RBV 治疗 24 周(参考方案)相比,使用 DCV+SOF+RBV 治疗 12 周和 16 周的 ICER 分别为 38572 欧元/QALY 和 16436 欧元/QALY,均低于意大利卫生经济学协会确定的 40000 欧元/QALY 阈值。敏感性分析证实了结果的稳健性。考虑到 40000 欧元/QALY 的阈值,使用 DCV+SOF+RBV 治疗基因型 3 HCV 感染的肝硬化患者可能比 SOF+RBV(治疗 24 周)更具成本效益。

相似文献

1
Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of daclatasvir + sofosbuvir + ribavirin (16 weeks and 12 weeks) vs sofosbuvir + ribavirin (16 weeks and 24 weeks) for the treatment of cirrhotic patients affected with hepatitis C virus genotype 3 in Italy.达卡他韦+索非布韦+利巴韦林(16 周和 12 周)与索非布韦+利巴韦林(16 周和 24 周)治疗意大利丙型肝炎病毒基因型 3 肝硬化患者的成本效益分析。
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Jan;19(1):37-44. doi: 10.1007/s10198-016-0865-3. Epub 2016 Dec 22.
2
Cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir-based regimen for treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection in Canada.在加拿大,达卡他韦加索磷布韦方案治疗丙型肝炎病毒3型感染的成本效益
J Med Econ. 2016;19(2):181-92. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1106546. Epub 2015 Nov 11.
3
Cost-effectiveness of combination daclatasvir-sofosbuvir for treatment of genotype 3 chronic hepatitis C infection in the United States.在美国,达卡他韦-索磷布韦联合用药治疗基因3型慢性丙型肝炎感染的成本效益分析
J Med Econ. 2017 Jul;20(7):692-702. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1307204. Epub 2017 Apr 20.
4
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New HCV Treatments in Egyptian Cirrhotic and Non-Cirrhotic Patients: A Societal Perspective.埃及肝硬化和非肝硬化患者新型丙型肝炎病毒治疗的成本效益分析:社会视角
Value Health Reg Issues. 2017 Sep;13:7-15. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2017.03.012. Epub 2017 Jul 26.
5
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Daclatasvir/Sofosbuvir for the treatment of the HCV patients failed after the first line with second generation of DAAs in Italy.意大利二线 DAA 治疗失败的 HCV 患者应用达卡他韦/索磷布韦的成本效果分析。
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019 Jun;19(3):363-374. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2019.1537784. Epub 2018 Oct 31.
6
Real-world effectiveness of daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir and velpatasvir/sofosbuvir in hepatitis C genotype 2 and 3.达卡他韦联合索非布韦和维帕他韦/索非布韦治疗丙型肝炎 2 型和 3 型的真实世界疗效。
J Hepatol. 2019 Jan;70(1):15-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.09.018. Epub 2018 Sep 26.
7
Sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir with or without ribavirin is safe and effective for post-transplant hepatitis C recurrence and severe fibrosis and cirrhosis: A prospective study.索磷布韦联合达卡他韦,无论是否联用利巴韦林,对于移植后丙型肝炎复发以及严重纤维化和肝硬化均安全有效:一项前瞻性研究。
Clin Transplant. 2018 Feb;32(2). doi: 10.1111/ctr.13165. Epub 2017 Dec 18.
8
[Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir, peginterferon and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C: Early treatment in the initial stage of fibrosis vs. delayed treatment in advanced fibrosis].索磷布韦、聚乙二醇干扰素和利巴韦林治疗慢性丙型肝炎患者的成本效益分析:纤维化初期的早期治疗与晚期纤维化的延迟治疗对比
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Aug-Sep;39(7):449-57. doi: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2016.03.006. Epub 2016 Apr 12.
9
Real-world cost-effectiveness of pan-genotypic Sofosbuvir-Velpatasvir combination versus genotype dependent directly acting anti-viral drugs for treatment of hepatitis C patients in the universal coverage scheme of Punjab state in India.印度旁遮普邦全民医保计划中泛基因型索磷布韦-维帕他韦联合方案与基于基因型的直接作用抗病毒药物治疗丙型肝炎患者的真实世界成本效益比较。
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 29;14(8):e0221769. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221769. eCollection 2019.
10
Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in patients with genotype 2 chronic hepatitis C: an analysis with real world outcomes from a multicentre cohort in Japan.索磷布韦联合利巴韦林治疗基因 2 型慢性丙型肝炎的成本效果分析:来自日本多中心队列的真实世界结局分析。
BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 19;9(6):e023405. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023405.

引用本文的文献

1
Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values Used in European Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations for Chronic Hepatitis C: Impact on Cost-Effectiveness Results.系统评价在欧洲慢性丙型肝炎药物经济学评价中使用的健康状态效用值:对成本效益结果的影响。
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021 Jan;19(1):29-44. doi: 10.1007/s40258-020-00600-w.
2
Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of letermovir for the prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus in adult cytomegalovirus seropositive recipients undergoing allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Italy.在意大利,接受异基因造血干细胞移植的巨细胞病毒血清阳性成年受者中,使用来特莫韦预防巨细胞病毒的成本效益分析。
Infect Drug Resist. 2019 May 8;12:1127-1138. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S196282. eCollection 2019.
3

本文引用的文献

1
Estimating the Incidence and Prevalence of Chronic Hepatitis C Infection in Taiwan Using Back Projection.利用反向推算估计台湾慢性丙型肝炎感染的发病率和患病率。
Value Health Reg Issues. 2014 May;3:5-11. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2013.08.001. Epub 2013 Oct 30.
2
Hepatitis C genotype 3 disease.丙型肝炎3型疾病
Hepatol Int. 2016 Nov;10(6):861-870. doi: 10.1007/s12072-016-9748-z. Epub 2016 Jun 21.
3
Daclatasvir, sofosbuvir, and ribavirin for hepatitis C virus genotype 3 and advanced liver disease: A randomized phase III study (ALLY-3+).
Population Health and Cost-Effectiveness Implications of a "Treat All" Recommendation for HCV: A Review of the Model-Based Evidence.丙型肝炎病毒“全面治疗”建议对人群健康和成本效益的影响:基于模型证据的综述
MDM Policy Pract. 2018 May 24;3(1):2381468318776634. doi: 10.1177/2381468318776634. eCollection 2018 Jan-Jun.
4
Estimating the cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir + sofosbuvir versus sofosbuvir + ribavirin for patients with genotype 3 hepatitis C virus.评估对于丙型肝炎病毒3型患者,达卡他韦+索磷布韦对比索磷布韦+利巴韦林的成本效益。
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2017 Jul 21;15:15. doi: 10.1186/s12962-017-0077-4. eCollection 2017.
用于丙型肝炎病毒基因3型和晚期肝病的达卡他韦、索磷布韦和利巴韦林:一项随机III期研究(ALLY-3+)
Hepatology. 2016 May;63(5):1430-41. doi: 10.1002/hep.28473. Epub 2016 Mar 4.
4
The cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir-based regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 4 in the UK.在英国,基于达卡他韦的治疗方案用于治疗丙型肝炎病毒1型和4型的成本效益。
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Feb;28(2):173-80. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000510.
5
Cost Effectiveness of Daclatasvir/Asunaprevir Versus Peginterferon/Ribavirin and Protease Inhibitors for the Treatment of Hepatitis c Genotype 1b Naïve Patients in Chile.在智利,对于初治的丙型肝炎1b型患者,达卡他韦/阿舒瑞韦与聚乙二醇干扰素/利巴韦林及蛋白酶抑制剂相比的成本效益分析
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 6;10(11):e0141660. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141660. eCollection 2015.
6
Cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir-based regimen for treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection in Canada.在加拿大,达卡他韦加索磷布韦方案治疗丙型肝炎病毒3型感染的成本效益
J Med Econ. 2016;19(2):181-92. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1106546. Epub 2015 Nov 11.
7
Estimating the cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus asunaprevir in difficult to treat Japanese patients chronically infected with hepatitis C genotype 1b.评估在日本难以治愈的慢性丙型肝炎1b型感染患者中使用达卡他韦联合阿舒瑞韦的成本效益。
Hepatol Res. 2016 Mar;46(5):423-33. doi: 10.1111/hepr.12570. Epub 2015 Oct 6.
8
Cost-effectiveness analysis of simeprevir with daclatasvir for non-cirrhotic genotype-1b-naïve patients plus chronic hepatitis C.西米普明与达卡他韦联合治疗初治非肝硬化基因1b型慢性丙型肝炎患者的成本效益分析
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(2):285-94. doi: 10.1586/14737167.2015.1081061. Epub 2015 Aug 29.
9
Efficacy of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin with or without peginterferon-alfa in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection and treatment-experienced patients with cirrhosis and hepatitis C virus genotype 2 infection.索磷布韦联合利巴韦林加或不加聚乙二醇干扰素-α治疗丙型肝炎病毒基因型 3 感染且有肝硬化的经治患者和丙型肝炎病毒基因型 2 感染且有肝硬化的经治患者的疗效。
Gastroenterology. 2015 Nov;149(6):1462-70. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.07.043. Epub 2015 Aug 4.
10
Treatment of hepatitis C in patients with cirrhosis: remaining challenges for direct-acting antiviral therapy.治疗肝硬化患者的丙型肝炎:直接作用抗病毒治疗的遗留挑战。
Drugs. 2015 May;75(8):823-34. doi: 10.1007/s40265-015-0401-2.