Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for Genotype 1 Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Non-VA and VA Populations

Background: Chronic hepatitis C viral (HCV) infection affects millions of Americans. Health care systems face complex choices between highly efficacious, costly treatments. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of treatments for chronic, genotype 1 HCV monoinfected, treatment-naïve individuals in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and general US health care systems. Methods: The study used a decision-analytic Markov model, employing appropriate payer perspectives and time horizons, and discounting benefits and costs at 3% annually. Interventions included the following: sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF-LDV); ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir/dasabuvir (3D); sofosbuvir/simeprevir (SOF-SMV); sofosbuvir/pegylated interferon/ribavirin (SOF-RBV-PEG); boceprevir/pegylated interferon/ribavirin (BOC-RBV-PEG); and pegylated interferon/ribavirin (PEG-RBV). Outcomes were sustained virologic response (SVR), advanced liver disease, costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness. Results: SOF-LDV and 3D achieve high SVR rates, reducing advanced liver disease (>20% relative to no treatment), and increasing QALYs by >2 years per person. For the non-VA population, at current prices ($5040 per week for SOF-LDV;$4796 per week for 3D), SOF-LDV’s lifetime cost ($293,370) is$18,000 lower than 3D’s because of its shorter duration in subgroups. SOF-LDV costs $17,100 per QALY gained relative to no treatment. 3D costs$208,000 per QALY gained relative to SOF-LDV. Both dominate other treatments and are even more cost-effective for the VA, though VA aggregate treatment costs still exceed $4 billion at SOF-LDV prices of$3308 per week. Drug prices strongly determine relative cost-effectiveness for SOF-LDV and 3D; with price reductions of 20% to 30% depending on health system, 3D could be cost-effective relative to SOF-LDV. We currently lack head-to-head regimen effectiveness trials. Conclusions: New HCV treatments are cost-effective in multiple health care systems if trial-estimated efficacy is achieved in practice, though, at current prices, total expenditures could present substantial challenges

Feasibility of achieving the 2025 WHO global tuberculosis targets in South Africa, China, and India: a combined analysis of 11 mathematical models

Background: The post-2015 End TB Strategy proposes targets of 50% reduction in tuberculosis incidence and 75% reduction in mortality from tuberculosis by 2025. We aimed to assess whether these targets are feasible in three high-burden countries with contrasting epidemiology and previous programmatic achievements. Methods: 11 independently developed mathematical models of tuberculosis transmission projected the epidemiological impact of currently available tuberculosis interventions for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in China, India, and South Africa. Models were calibrated with data on tuberculosis incidence and mortality in 2012. Representatives from national tuberculosis programmes and the advocacy community provided distinct country-specific intervention scenarios, which included screening for symptoms, active case finding, and preventive therapy. Findings: Aggressive scale-up of any single intervention scenario could not achieve the post-2015 End TB Strategy targets in any country. However, the models projected that, in the South Africa national tuberculosis programme scenario, a combination of continuous isoniazid preventive therapy for individuals on antiretroviral therapy, expanded facility-based screening for symptoms of tuberculosis at health centres, and improved tuberculosis care could achieve a 55% reduction in incidence (range 31–62%) and a 72% reduction in mortality (range 64–82%) compared with 2015 levels. For India, and particularly for China, full scale-up of all interventions in tuberculosis-programme performance fell short of the 2025 targets, despite preventing a cumulative 3·4 million cases. The advocacy scenarios illustrated the high impact of detecting and treating latent tuberculosis. Interpretation: Major reductions in tuberculosis burden seem possible with current interventions. However, additional interventions, adapted to country-specific tuberculosis epidemiology and health systems, are needed to reach the post-2015 End TB Strategy targets at country level. Funding: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundatio

Cost-effectiveness and resource implications of aggressive action on tuberculosis in China, India, and South Africa: a combined analysis of nine models

Background: The post-2015 End TB Strategy sets global targets of reducing tuberculosis incidence by 50% and mortality by 75% by 2025. We aimed to assess resource requirements and cost-effectiveness of strategies to achieve these targets in China, India, and South Africa. Methods: We examined intervention scenarios developed in consultation with country stakeholders, which scaled up existing interventions to high but feasible coverage by 2025. Nine independent modelling groups collaborated to estimate policy outcomes, and we estimated the cost of each scenario by synthesising service use estimates, empirical cost data, and expert opinion on implementation strategies. We estimated health effects (ie, disability-adjusted life-years averted) and resource implications for 2016–35, including patient-incurred costs. To assess resource requirements and cost-effectiveness, we compared scenarios with a base case representing continued current practice. Findings: Incremental tuberculosis service costs differed by scenario and country, and in some cases they more than doubled existing funding needs. In general, expansion of tuberculosis services substantially reduced patient-incurred costs and, in India and China, produced net cost savings for most interventions under a societal perspective. In all three countries, expansion of access to care produced substantial health gains. Compared with current practice and conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds, most intervention approaches seemed highly cost-effective. Interpretation: Expansion of tuberculosis services seems cost-effective for high-burden countries and could generate substantial health and economic benefits for patients, although substantial new funding would be required. Further work to determine the optimal intervention mix for each country is necessary. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation