Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jan;16(1):115-122.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.024. Epub 2017 Jun 17.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Oral direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment offer new hope to both pre- and post-liver transplant (LT) patients. However, whether to treat HCV patients before vs after LT is not clear because treatment can improve liver function but could reduce the chance of receiving an LT while on the waiting list. Our objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of pre-LT vs post-LT HCV treatment with oral DAAs in decompensated cirrhotic patients on the LT waiting list.
We used a validated mathematical model that simulated a virtual trial comparing long-term clinical and cost outcomes of pre-LT vs post-LT HCV treatment with oral DAAs. Model parameters were estimated from United Network for Organ Sharing data, SOLAR-1 and 2 trials, and published studies. For each strategy, we estimated the quality-adjusted life-year, life expectancy, cost, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
For lower MELD scores, quality-adjusted life-years were higher with pre-LT HCV treatment compared with post-LT treatment. Pre-LT HCV treatment was cost saving in patients with MELD scores of 15 or less, and cost effective in patients with MELD scores of 16 to 21. In contrast, post-LT HCV treatment was cost effective in patients with MELD scores of 22 to 29 and cost saving if MELD scores were 30 or higher. Results varied by drug prices and by United Network for Organ Sharing regions.
For cirrhotic patients awaiting LT, pre-LT HCV treatment with DAAs is cost effective/saving in patients with MELD scores of 21 or lower, whereas post-LT HCV treatment is cost effective/saving in patients with MELD scores of 22 or higher.
口服直接作用抗病毒药物(DAA)治疗丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)为肝移植(LT)前和 LT 后患者带来了新的希望。然而,尚不清楚 LT 前治疗与 LT 后治疗 HCV 的效果,因为治疗可以改善肝功能,但可能会降低等待名单上接受 LT 的机会。我们的目的是评估在 LT 等待名单上失代偿性肝硬化患者中,LT 前与 LT 后 HCV 治疗的口服 DAA 的成本效益。
我们使用了一个经过验证的数学模型,模拟了一项比较 LT 前与 LT 后 HCV 治疗口服 DAA 的长期临床和成本结局的虚拟试验。模型参数是根据美国器官共享网络数据、SOLAR-1 和 2 试验以及已发表的研究进行估计的。对于每种策略,我们估计了质量调整生命年、预期寿命、成本和增量成本效益比。
对于较低的 MELD 评分,LT 前 HCV 治疗的质量调整生命年高于 LT 后治疗。在 MELD 评分在 15 或以下的患者中,LT 前 HCV 治疗具有成本效益,在 MELD 评分在 16 至 21 的患者中也具有成本效益。相比之下,在 MELD 评分在 22 至 29 的患者中,LT 后 HCV 治疗具有成本效益,在 MELD 评分在 30 或以上的患者中则具有成本效益且节约成本。结果因药物价格和美国器官共享网络区域而异。
对于等待 LT 的肝硬化患者,在 MELD 评分在 21 或以下的患者中,LT 前 HCV 治疗与 DAA 具有成本效益/节约,而在 MELD 评分在 22 或以上的患者中,LT 后 HCV 治疗具有成本效益/节约。