Department of Public Administration, Business School, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.
Department of Pathology, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Front Public Health. 2021 Dec 9;9:779215. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.779215. eCollection 2021.
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 is the most prevalent HCV infection in China. Sofosbuvir-based direct antiviral agent (DAA) regimens are the current mainstays of treatment. Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) regimens became reimbursable in China in 2020. Thus, this study aimed to identify the optimal SOF-based regimen and to inform efficient use of healthcare resources by optimizing DAA use in treating HCV genotype 1. A modeling-based cost-utility analysis was conducted from the payer's perspective targeting adult Chinese patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. Direct medical costs and health utilities were inputted into a Markov model to simulate lifetime experiences of chronically infected HCV patients after receiving SOF/LDV, SOF/VEL or the traditional strategy of pegylated interferon (pegIFN) + ribavirin (RBV). Discounted lifetime cost and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed and compared to generate the incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR). An ICUR below the threshold of 31,500 $/QALY suggests cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of model findings. Both SOF/LDV and SOF/VEL regimens were dominant to the pegIFN + RBV regimen by creating more QALYs and incurring less cost. SOF/LDV produced 0.542 more QALYs but cost $10,390 less than pegIFN + RBV. Relative to SOF/LDV, SOF/VEL had an ICUR of 168,239 $/QALY which did not meet the cost-effectiveness standard. Therefore SOF/LDV was the optimal strategy. These findings were robust to linear and random variations of model parameters. However, reducing the SOF/VEL price by 40% would make this regimen the most cost-effective option. SOF/LDV was found to be the most cost-effective treatment, and SOF/VEL was also economically dominant to pegIFN + RBV. These findings indicated that replacing pegIFN + RBV with DAA regimens could be a promising strategy.
丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)基因型 1 是中国最常见的 HCV 感染。基于索非布韦的直接抗病毒药物(DAA)方案是目前治疗的主要方法。2020 年,索非布韦/维帕他韦(SOF/VEL)和索非布韦/雷迪帕韦(SOF/LDV)方案在中国被纳入医保。因此,本研究旨在确定最佳的 SOF 方案,并通过优化 DAA 在治疗 HCV 基因型 1 中的应用来优化医疗资源的利用。从支付者的角度出发,针对中国慢性 HCV 基因型 1 感染的成年患者,进行了基于模型的成本效用分析。直接医疗成本和健康效用被输入到一个马尔可夫模型中,以模拟接受 SOF/LDV、SOF/VEL 或传统聚乙二醇干扰素(pegIFN)+利巴韦林(RBV)方案治疗的慢性 HCV 感染患者的终生经历。计算并比较了终生成本和质量调整生命年(QALYs),以生成增量成本效用比(ICUR)。如果 ICUR 低于 31500 美元/QALY,则表明具有成本效益。进行了确定性和概率敏感性分析,以检查模型结果的稳健性。SOF/LDV 和 SOF/VEL 方案均优于 pegIFN+RBV 方案,因为前者可获得更多的 QALYs 且成本更低。SOF/LDV 方案产生了 0.542 个额外的 QALYs,但成本比 pegIFN+RBV 方案低 10390 美元。与 SOF/LDV 相比,SOF/VEL 的 ICUR 为 168239 美元/QALY,未达到成本效益标准。因此,SOF/LDV 是最佳方案。这些发现对模型参数的线性和随机变化具有稳健性。然而,将 SOF/VEL 的价格降低 40%,将使其成为最具成本效益的选择。SOF/LDV 被发现是最具成本效益的治疗方法,SOF/VEL 也在经济上优于 pegIFN+RBV。这些发现表明,用 DAA 方案替代 pegIFN+RBV 可能是一种很有前途的策略。