Cost analysis of sofosbuvir/ribavirin versus sofosbuvir/simeprevir for genotype 1 HCV in interferon ineligible/intolerant individuals

Hepatology

Accepted Article (Accepted, unedited articles published online and citable. The final edited and typeset version of record will appear in future.)

Viral Hepatitis

Liesl M. Hagan^1,*, Mark S. Sulkowski² and Raymond F. Schinazi¹

DOI: 10.1002/hep.27151

Copyright © 2014 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases

Keywords: Olysio; Sovaldi; direct-acting antiviral agent; interferon-free

Abstract

Background: Treatment guidance for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) released by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) offer two options for interferon-ineligible/intolerant individuals with genotype 1 infection: sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SOF/RBV) for 24 weeks, or sofosbuvir/simeprevir (SOF/SMV) for 12 weeks. A 24-week course of SOF/RBV costs approximately US$169,000, with sustained virologic response (SVR) rates ranging from 52-84%; 12 weeks of SOF/SMV costs approximately $150,000, with SVR between 89% and 100%. Because SOF/SMV is currently used off-label, debate exists among physicians and payers about whether it should be prescribed and covered. This paper presents a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two treatment regimens accounting for costs of drugs, treatment-related medical care, re-treatment for individuals who do not achieve SVR, and natural history of continued HCV infection after failed re-treatment. The model uses a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective. Results: In the base case scenario, SOF/SMV dominated SOF/RBV in a modeled 50-year-old cohort of treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced subjects, excluding those who failed prior therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir. SOF/SMV yielded lower costs and more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the average subject compared to SOF/RBV ($165,336 and 14.69 QALYs vs. $243,586 and 14.45 QALYs, respectively). In base case cost-analysis, the SOF/SMV treatment strategy saved $91,590 per SVR compared to SOF/RBV. Under all one-way sensitivity scenarios, SOF/SMV remained dominant and resulted in cost savings. Conclusions: These results suggest that a 12-week course of SOF/SMV is a more cost-effective treatment for genotype 1 CHC than 24 weeks of SOF/RBV among interferon-ineligible/intolerant individuals, supporting the AASLD/IDSA guidance and offering implications for both clinical and regulatory decision-making as well as pharmaceutical pricing. (Hepatology 2014;)

Source