The Burden of Untreated Hepatitis C Virus Infection: A US Patients' Perspective
Merck & Co., Inc., WP 97-A423, 770 Sumneytown Pike, West Point, PA, 19486, USA, . Digestive Diseases and Sciences
(Impact Factor: 2.61).
06/2012; 57(11):2995-3003. DOI: 10.1007/s10620-012-2233-1
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is widespread and associated with high economic costs and reduced quality of life, but the impact of untreated HCV infection on patient outcome is not well understood.
To estimate the impact of untreated HCV infection on work productivity, daily activity, healthcare use, economic costs, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
Respondents to the 2010 US National Health and Wellness Survey (n = 75,000) reporting physician diagnosis of HCV infection but not current or previous treatment (patients) were matched to respondents without HCV infection (controls) by use of propensity scores. Those reporting infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) were excluded. Self-reported work impairment, activity impairment, healthcare resource use, and HRQoL were compared between patients and controls. Indirect and direct costs were estimated.
A total of 306 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients were more impaired at work than controls, with overall work impairment of 26 % versus 15 %, respectively (P < 0.001), mostly because of presenteeism in both groups. Annual productivity losses were estimated at $10,316 per employed patient compared with $5,469 per control (P < 0.001). Patients used more healthcare, with all-cause healthcare costs estimated at $22,818 per patient annually, compared with $15,362 per control (P < 0.001). HRQoL and activity impairment were also worse among patients than controls.
Untreated HCV infection is associated with substantial economic costs to society, through loss of productivity and increased use of healthcare resources, and with impaired well-being of the patient.
Available from: Shannon Allen Ferrante
- "Seventh, this analysis was done from the payer perspective. Patients with chronic HCV or the sequelae of cirrhosis have been shown to experience increased work and productivity losses, suffer activity impairment, and incur increased indirect medical costs compared with people without HCV [61-63]. Inclusion of such costs would result in lower ICERs for both boceprevir-regimens compared with dual therapy since the treatment efficacy of both BOC/RGT and BOC/PR48 are greater than the efficacy of treatment with PR48. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
SPRINT-2 demonstrated that boceprevir (BOC), an oral hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural 3 (NS3) protease inhibitor, added to peginterferon alfa-2b (P) and ribavirin (R) significantly increased sustained virologic response rates over PR alone in previously untreated adult patients with chronic HCV genotype 1. We estimated the long-term impact of triple therapy vs. dual therapy on the clinical burden of HCV and performed a cost-effectiveness evaluation.
A Markov model was used to estimate the incidence of liver complications, discounted costs (2010 US$), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of three treatment strategies for treatment-naïve patients with chronic HCV genotype 1. The model simulates the treatment regimens studied in SPRINT-2 in which PR was administered for 4 weeks followed by: 1) placebo plus PR for 44 weeks (PR48); 2) BOC plus PR using response guided therapy (BOC/RGT); and 3) BOC plus PR for 44 weeks (BOC/PR48) and makes projections within and beyond the trial. HCV-related state-transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from previously published studies. All costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%.
The model projected approximately 38% and 43% relative reductions in the lifetime incidence of liver complications in the BOC/RGT and BOC/PR48 regimens compared with PR48, respectively. Treatment with BOC/RGT is associated with an incremental cost of $10,348 and an increase of 0.62 QALYs compared to treatment with PR48. Treatment with BOC/PR48 is associated with an incremental cost of $35,727 and an increase of 0.65 QALYs compared to treatment with PR48. The ICERs were $16,792/QALY and $55,162/QALY for the boceprevir-based treatment groups compared with PR48, respectively. The ICER for BOC/PR48 compared with BOC/RGT was $807,804.
The boceprevir-based regimens used in the SPRINT-2 trial were projected to substantially reduce the lifetime incidence of liver complications and increase the QALYs in treatment-naive patients with hepatitis C genotype 1. It was also demonstrated that boceprevir-based regimens offer patients the possibility of experiencing great clinical benefit with a shorter duration of therapy. Both boceprevir-based treatment strategies were projected to be cost-effective at a reasonable threshold in the US when compared to treatment with PR48.
BMC Infectious Diseases 04/2013; 13(1):190. DOI:10.1186/1471-2334-13-190 · 2.61 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: With the availability of effective antiviral therapies for chronic viral hepatitis B and C, cost-effectiveness studies have been performed to assess the outcomes and costs of these therapies to support health policy. It is now accepted that treatment of active CHB is cost-effective versus no treatment, although there are a variety of options. And with the new developments around CHC treatment and diagnostic tools it is of interest to both the clinician and policy makers to know both the costs and effects of these choices. The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with an insight into the recent treatment developments and cost-effectiveness issues related to chronic hepatitis B and C treatment, and an overview of recent cost-effectiveness studies evolving around HBV and HCV therapy.
Best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology 12/2013; 27(6):973-85. DOI:10.1016/j.bpg.2013.08.020 · 3.48 Impact Factor
Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 01/2014; 12(4). DOI:10.1016/j.cgh.2014.01.025 · 7.90 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.