Peginterferon alfa and ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C in patients eligible for shortened treatment, re-treatment or in HCV/HIV co-infection: A systematic review and economic evaluation

Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 04/2011; 15(17):i-xii, 1-210. DOI: 10.3310/hta15170
Source: PubMed


to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peginterferon alfa and ribavirin for the treatment of chronic hepatitis c virus (HCV) in three specific patient subgroups affected by recent licence changes: those eligible for shortened treatment courses [i.e. those with low viral load (LVL) and who attained a rapid virological response (RVR) at 4 weeks of treatment], those eligible for re-treatment following previous non-response or relapse, and those co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched up to October 2009. Key hepatitis C resources and symposia, bibliographies of related papers and manufacturer submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence were also searched and clinical experts were contacted.
A systematic review and economic evaluation were carried out. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by one reviewer. Inclusion criteria were defined a priori and applied independently by two reviewers to the full text of retrieved references. For the clinical effectiveness review, studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with chronic HCV, restricted to the patient groups described above. The intervention was standard peginterferon and ribavirin combination therapy compared with shortened duration courses (24 weeks for genotype 1, 16 weeks for genotype 2/3) or best supportive care (BSC). Outcomes included sustained virological response (SVR), relapse rate and adverse events. In addition, full economic evaluations and studies of health-related quality of life were sought for this subgroup of patients. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by two reviewers independently. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with tabulation of results. Our previously published Markov state-transition model was adapted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies in subgroups of adults with chronic HCV who were eligible for shortened treatment and re-treatment and those with HCV/HIV co-infection. The model extrapolated the impact of SVR on life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy and lifetime costs for each subgroup of patients with HCV. Categories of costs included in the model were drug acquisition, patient management, on-treatment monitoring, management of adverse events, and health-state costs for disease progression.
In total, 2400 references were identified. Six RCTs were included in the review of clinical effectiveness, all reporting peginterferon alfa and ribavirin therapy in patients eligible for shortened treatment. In general, these RCTs were of good quality. No RCTs comparing peginterferon and ribavirin with BSC were identified for the re-treatment or co-infection populations. The results suggest that chronic HCV patients who have LVL at baseline and who achieve an RVR can be treated with shortened courses of therapy (24 weeks for genotype 1, 16 weeks for genotype 2/3) and achieve SVR rates that are comparable to those who receive the standard duration of treatment (ranges 84%-96% vs 83%-100%, respectively). However, patient numbers in the LVL/RVR subgroups were small and none of the trials was powered for this subgroup analysis, so results should be interpreted with caution. In the one trial reporting virological relapse rates in the subgroup of patients with LVL/RVR, rates were low and not statistically significantly different between those treated for 24 versus 48 weeks [3.6% vs 0%, respectively, difference 3.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.2% to 6.6%, p = 1.000]. In the cost-effectiveness analysis of shortened treatment with peginterferon alfa-2a, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £35,000 to £65,000 for patients with genotype 1, whereas in patients with genotypes 2 and 3 shortened treatment dominated standard treatment. For patients with genotype 1 with LVL/RVR, shortened treatment with peginterferon alfa-2b dominated standard treatment. In patients with genotype 1 and those with genotype non-1 who were re-treated with peginterferon alfa-2a, the ICERs were £9169 and £2294, respectively. In patients with genotypes 1 and 4, who were re-treated with peginterferon alfa-2b, the ICER was £7681, whereas re-treatment dominated BSC for patients with genotypes 2 and 3. In patients co-infected with HCV/HIV, who were receiving peginterferon alfa-2a, the ICER was £7941 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in patients with genotypes 1 and 4, whereas in patients with genotypes 2 and 3 peginterferon alfa-2a dominated BSC. In co-infected patients receiving peginterferon alfa-2b the ICER was £11,806 in genotypes 1 and 4, and £2161 in genotypes 2 and 3.
The clinical trial evidence indicates that patients may be successfully treated with a shorter course of peginterferon combination therapy without compromising the likelihood of achieving an SVR. The economic evaluation shows that treatment with peginterferon alfa in the specified subgroups of patients with LVL/RVR will yield QALY gains, without excessive increases in costs, and may be cost saving in some situations. However, a judgement is required on the value of the QALY loss that may result from adopting a shorter treatment regimen, if shorter treatment is associated with a lower SVR than standard treatment duration. There is a need for further RCT evidence, particularly in people who have not responded to, or relapsed following, treatment. Phase II and Phase III trials are currently in progress, evaluating the safety and efficacy of protease inhibitors and nucleoside analogues for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced people with chronic HCV.
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Download full-text


Available from: Debbie Hartwell
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) are indicated for people with conductive or mixed hearing loss who can benefit from amplification of sound. In resource limited health care systems, it is important that evidence regarding the benefit of BAHAs is critically appraised to aid decision-making. To assess the clinical effectiveness of BAHAs for people with bilateral hearing impairment. Systematic review. Nineteen electronic resources were searched from inception to November 2009. Additional studies were sought from reference lists, clinical experts and BAHA manufacturers. Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment of full papers were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Studies were synthesised through narrative review with tabulation of results. Twelve studies were included. Studies suggested audiological benefits of BAHAs when compared with bone-conduction hearing aids or no aiding. A mixed pattern of results was seen when BAHAs were compared to air-conduction hearing aids. Improvements in quality of life with BAHAs were found by a hearing-specific instrument but not generic quality of life measures. Issues such as improvement of discharging ears and length of time the aid can be worn were not adequately addressed by the studies. Studies demonstrated some benefits of bilateral BAHAs. Adverse events data were limited. The quality of the studies was low. The available evidence is weak. As such, caution is indicated in the interpretation of presently available data. However, based on the available evidence, BAHAs appear to be a reasonable treatment option for people with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss. Further research into the benefits of BAHAs, including quality of life, is required to reduce the uncertainty.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2011 · Clinical otolaryngology: official journal of ENT-UK; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Liver disease is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the era of combination antiretroviral therapy in HIV/hepatitis C virus (HCV) co-infected patients. This review highlights the role of pegylated interferon-alpha (peg-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) therapy and examines factors associated with response and strategies to maximize responses. HCV viral clearance is lower in HIV co-infected patients than in HCV mono-infected patients. However, in patients who attain sustained response there is clinical benefit in terms of liver disease associated morbidity and mortality and treatment is costeffective. Predictors of response appear similar, although there are a number of modifiable patient-associated and HIV-associated factors that could be addressed. Moreover, the use of weight-based RBV and treatment length guided by early viral responses improve response rate. Avoidance of drug-drug interactions and use of haematopoietic growth factors reduce adverse events and dose reductions and ultimately increase response rates. Very early prediction of treatment futility is promising. Induction dosing strategies have not yielded positive results, though twice weekly peg-IFN-alpha-2a induction therapy merits further investigation. Peg-IFN/RBV therapy plays an important role in the management of HCV in HIV-infected patients. Efforts to maximize response to current therapy need to continue while we await new therapies.
    No preview · Article · Nov 2011 · Current opinion in HIV and AIDS
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The combination of either boceprevir or telaprevir with ribavirin and interferon (triple therapy) has been shown to be more effective than ribavirin+interferon (dual therapy) for the treatment of genotype 1 hepatitis C. Since the benefit of these treatments takes place after years, simulation models are needed to predict long-term outcomes. In simulation models, the choice of different values of yearly discount rates (e.g., 6%, 3.5%, 2%, 1.5% or 0%) influences the results, but no studies have specifically addressed this issue. We examined this point by determining the long-term benefits under different conditions on the basis of standard modelling and using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to quantify the benefits. In our base case scenario, we compared the long-term benefit between patients given a treatment with a 40% sustained virologic response (SVR) (dual therapy) and patients given a treatment with a 70% SVR (triple therapy), and we then examined how these specific yearly discount rates influenced the incremental benefit. The gain between a 70% SVR and a 40% SVR decreased from 0.45 QALYs with a 0% discount rate to 0.22 QALYs with a 6% discount rate (ratio between the two values = 2.04). Testing the other discounting assumptions confirmed that the discount rate has a marked impact on the magnitude of the model-estimated incremental benefit. In conclusion, the results of our analysis can be helpful to better interpret cost-effectiveness studies evaluating new treatment for hepatitis C.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2012 · World Journal of Gastroenterology
Show more