Cost-effectiveness of telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon alpha and ribavirin in treatment-experienced chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Telaprevir (TVR,T) and boceprevir (BOC,B) are direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) used for the treatment of chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TVR combined with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) alfa-2a plus ribavirin (RBV) compared with Peg-IFN alfa-2a and RBV (PR) alone or BOC plus Peg-IFN alfa-2b and RBV in treatment-experienced patients.

METHODS:

A Markov cohort model of chronic genotype 1 HCV disease progression reflected the pathway of experienced patients retreated with DAA therapy. The population was stratified by previous response to treatment (i.e., previous relapsers, partial responders, and null responders). Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates were derived from a mixed-treatment comparison that included results from separate Phase III trials of TVR and BOC. Incremental cost per life year (LY) gained and quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained were computed at lifetime, adopting the NHS perspective. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Sub-group analyses were carried out by interleukin (IL)-28B genotype.

RESULTS:

Higher costs and improved outcomes were associated with T/PR relative to PR alone for all experienced patients (ICER of £6079). T/PR was cost-effective for each sub-group population with high SVR advantage in relapsers (ICER of £2658 vs £7593 and £20,875 for partial and null responders). T/PR remained cost-effective regardless of IL-28B sub-type. Compared to B/PR, T/PR prolonged QALYs by 0.57 and reduced lifetime costs by £13,960 for relapsers. For partial responders T/PR was less costly but less efficacious than B/PR, equating to an ICER of £128,117 per QALY gained.

LIMITATIONS:

No head-to-head trial provides direct evidence of better efficacy of T/PR vs B/PR.

CONCLUSION:

T/PR is cost-effective compared with PR alone in experienced patients regardless of treatment history and IL-28B genotype. Compared to B/PR, T/PR is always cost-saving but only more effective in relapsers.

• Authors: Sandrine Cure, Florence Bianic, Sandra Gavart, Steve Curtis, Seina Lee, Geoffrey Dusheiko
• Journal: Journal of medical economics (J Med Econ) Vol. 17 Issue 1 Pg. 77-87 (Jan 2014) ISSN: 1941-837X [Electronic] England
• PMID: 24032626 (Publication Type: Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)

Chemical References

• Antiviral Agents
• Interferon alpha-2
• Interferon-alpha
• Oligopeptides
• Recombinant Proteins
• Polyethylene Glycols
• Ribavirin
• telaprevir
• N-(3-amino-1-(cyclobutylmethyl)-2,3-dioxopropyl)-3-(2-((((1,1-dimethylethyl)amino)carbonyl)amino)-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutyl)-6,6-dimethyl-3-azabicyclo(3.1.0)hexan-2-carboxamide
• Proline
• peginterferon alfa-2b
• peginterferon alfa-2a

Topics

• Antiviral Agents (economics, therapeutic use)
• Cost-Benefit Analysis
• Drug Therapy, Combination (economics)
• Genotype
• Hepacivirus (drug effects)
• Hepatitis C, Chronic (drug therapy)
• Humans
• Interferon alpha-2
• Interferon-alpha (economics, therapeutic use)
• Markov Chains
• Oligopeptides (economics, therapeutic use)
• Polyethylene Glycols (economics, therapeutic use)
• Proline (analogs & derivatives, economics, therapeutic use)
• Quality-Adjusted Life Years
• Recombinant Proteins (economics, therapeutic use)
• Ribavirin (economics, therapeutic use)