Cost-utility analysis of four WHO-recommended sofosbuvir-based regimens for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in sub-Saharan Africa

Background Although direct-acting antivirals (DAA) have become standard care for patients with chronic hepatitis C worldwide, there is no evidence for their value for money in sub-Saharan Africa. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of four sofosbuvir-based regimens recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) in Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal. Methods Using modelling, we simulated chronic hepatitis C progression with and without treatment in hypothetical cohorts of patients infected with the country’s predominant genotypes (1, 2 and 4) and without other viral coinfections, history of liver complication or hepatocellular carcinoma. Using the status-quo ‘no DAA treatment’ as a comparator, we assessed four regimens: sofosbuvir-ribavirin, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir (both recommended in WHO 2016 guidelines and assessed in the TAC pilot trial conducted in Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal), sofosbuvir-daclatasvir and sofosbuvir-ledipasvir (two pangenotypic regimens recommended in WHO 2018 guidelines). DAA effectiveness, costs and utilities were mainly estimated using data from the TAC pilot trial. Secondary data from the literature was used to estimate disease progression probabilities with and without treatment. We considered two DAA pricing scenarios: S1) originator prices; S2) generic prices. Uncertainty was addressed using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results With slightly higher effectiveness and significantly lower costs, sofosbuvir/velpatasvir was the preferred DAA regimen in S1 with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from US$526 to US$632/QALY. At the cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) of 0.5 times the 2017 country’s per-capita gross domestic product (GDP), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir was only cost-effective in Senegal (probability > 95%). In S2 at generic prices, sofosbuvir/daclatasvir was the preferred regimen due to significantly lower costs. ICERs ranged from US$139 to US$216/QALY according to country i.e. a 95% probability of being cost-effective. Furthermore, this regimen was cost-effective (probability> 95%) for all CET higher than US$281/QALY, US$223/QALY and US$195/QALY in Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal, respectively, corresponding to 0.14 (Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal) and 0.2 (Cameroon) times the country’s per-capita GDP. Conclusions Generic sofosbuvir/daclatasvir is very cost-effective for treating chronic hepatitis C in sub-Saharan Africa. Large-scale use of generics and an increase in national and international funding for hepatitis C treatment must be priorities for the HCV elimination agenda

Long-term effectiveness of Sofosbuvir-based hepatitis C regimens in Central and West Africa (ANRS 12342)

International Liver Congress (ILC), Paris, FRANCE, APR 11-15, 201

Pharmacoecon Open

BACKGROUND: Protease inhibitor monotherapy is a simplified treatment strategy for virally suppressed HIV-positive patients that has the potential for cost savings, as fewer drugs are used than with combination therapy. However, evidence for its economic value is limited. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy followed by treatment intensification in case of viral load rebound versus combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) with efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir in HIV-1 infected patients with viral suppression in the ANRS 140 DREAM trial. METHODS: DREAM was conducted in 36 French Hospitals between 2009 and 2013. For each treatment strategy, we estimated the unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted mean costs (in euro, year 2010 values) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient, as well as incremental costs and QALYs per patient. We then assessed uncertainty using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, scenario analyses and cost-effectiveness price-threshold (CEPT) analysis. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis considering 2009-2013 antiretroviral drug (ARV) prices, adjusted incremental costs and QALYs were - euro3296 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 5202 to - 1391) and 0.006 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.033), respectively, over 2 years, suggesting that monotherapy was cost-effective with a probability of 100% at various cost-effectiveness thresholds. In scenario analyses considering 2018 ARV prices, monotherapy remained cost-effective but with a lower probability (94% vs. 100% in the base-case analysis). The current price of cART would have to decrease by 34% to be cost-effective with a probability of 95%. CONCLUSION: Monotherapy appears to be cost-effective compared with cART for virologically suppressed HIV-positive patients in France. CEPT analysis is a useful tool to identify the preferred strategy to adopt given that ARV prices change rapidly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00946595

Bioconversion of aflatoxin-contaminated agri-food by-products with fly larvae into animal feed

Bioconversion of aflatoxin-contaminated agri-food by-products with fly larvae into animal fee

Cost-Effectiveness of Three Alternative Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Second-Line Regimens in HIV-Infected Patients in West and Central Africa.

International audienceWhile dolutegravir has been added by WHO as a preferred second-line option for the treatment of HIV infection, boosted protease inhibitor (bPI)-based regimens are still needed as alternative second-line options. Identifying optimal bPI-based second-line combinations is essential, given associated high costs and funding constraints in low- and middle-income countries. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of three alternative bPI-based second-line regimens in Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Senegal.METHODS: We used data collected over 2010-2015 in the 2LADY trial/post-trial cohort. Patients with first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure were randomly assigned to tenofovir/emtricitabine + lopinavir/ritonavir (TDF/FTC LPV/r; arm A), abacavir + didanosine + lopinavir/ritonavir (arm B), or tenofovir/emtricitabine + darunavir/ritonavir (arm C). Costs (US dollars, 2016), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for each country over 24 months of follow-up and extrapolated to 5 years using a simulated patient-level Markov model. We assessed uncertainty using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, scenarios and prices threshold analysis.RESULTS: In each country, over 24 months, arm A was significantly less costly than arms B and C (incremental costs ranging from US$410-$US721 and US$468-US$546 for B and C vs A, respectively) and offered similar health benefits (incremental QALY: - 0.138 to 0.023 and - 0.179 to 0.028, respectively). Over 5 years, arm A remained the least costly, health benefits not being significantly different between arms. Compared with arms B and C, in each study country, Arm A had a ≥ 95% probability of being cost-effective for a large range of cost-effectiveness thresholds, irrespective of the scenario considered.CONCLUSIONS: Using TDF/FTC LPV/r as a bPI-based second-line regimen provided the best economic value in the three study countries