Cost-Utility of Elbasvir/Grazoprevir in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Genotype 1 Infection.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-utility of treatment with elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) regimens compared with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir ± ribavirin (3D ± RBV), and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) in patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype (GT) 1 infection.

METHODS

A Markov cohort state-transition model was constructed to evaluate the cost-utility of EBR/GZR ± RBV over a lifetime time horizon from the payer perspective. The target population was patients infected with chronic hepatitis C GT1 subtypes a or b (GT1a or GT1b), stratified by treatment history (treatment-naive [TN] or treatment-experienced), presence of cirrhosis, baseline hepatitis C virus RNA (< or ≥6 million IU/mL), and presence of NS5A resistance-associated variants. The primary outcome was incremental cost-utility ratio for EBR/GZR ± RBV versus available oral direct-acting antiviral agents. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

EBR/GZR ± RBV was economically dominant versus LDV/SOF in all patient populations. EBR/GZR ± RBV was also less costly than SOF/VEL and 3D ± RBV, but produced fewer quality-adjusted life-years in select populations. In the remaining populations, EBR/GZR ± RBV was economically dominant. One-way sensitivity analyses showed varying sustained virologic response rates across EBR/GZR ± RBV regimens, commonly impacted model conclusions when lower bound values were inserted, and at the upper bound resulted in dominance over SOF/VEL in GT1a cirrhotic and GT1b TN noncirrhotic patients. Results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that EBR/GZR ± RBV was cost-effective in more than 99% of iterations in GT1a and GT1b noncirrhotic patients and more than 69% of iterations in GT1b cirrhotic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with other oral direct-acting antiviral agents, EBR/GZR ± RBV was the economically dominant regimen for treating GT1a noncirrhotic and GT1b TN cirrhotic patients, and was cost saving in all other populations.