Cost-effectiveness of Oral Protease Inhibitors Co-administration versus Pegylated Interferon-Α2b and Ribavirin Only for the Patients with Hepatitis C Genotype 1 in Kazakhstan Health Care Settings

  • Alima ALMADIYEVA Dept. of Public Health, Astana Medical University, Astana, Kazakhstan
  • Serik IBRAYEV Dept. of Public Health, Astana Medical University, Astana, Kazakhstan
  • Assiya TURGAMBAYEVA Dept. of Public Health, Astana Medical University, Astana, Kazakhstan
  • Alexandr KOSTYUK National Center for Medicines, Medical Devices and Medical Equipment Expertise, Astana, Kazakhstan
  • Zayituna KHISMETOVA Dept. of Public Health, Semey State Medical University, Semey, Kazakhstan
  • Zhanar AKHMETOVA Dept. of Public Health, Astana Medical University, Astana, Kazakhstan
Keywords: Hepatitis C, Antiviral treatment, Protease inhibitors, Cost-effectiveness

Abstract

Abstract Background: The triple therapy including peginterferon, ribavirin and protease inhibitors was more effective compared to the combination of only peginterferon and ribavirin. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of triple treatment in either treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients in Kazakhstan. Methods: A Markov model was created to assess long-term clinical advantages and the cost-effectiveness of the triple therapy from Kazakhstan payer perspective. Health state transition probabilities, pharmaceutical and other costs (according to the price in 2015), and utility rate were acquired from the published studies and publicly available sources. All used costs and benefits were discounted at 5% per year. Results: Despite treatment background, the patients, receiving boceprevir and telaprevir, were estimated to experience less serious liver-disease complications, more life-years, and more QALYs compared to the patients having standard of care. For treatment-experienced group, boceprevir and telaprevir were dominant, with more QALYs. For all the groups of patients, incremental costs per QALY gained were between USD14995 and USD18075. The total average cost of boceprevir is slightly more costly than a standard duration of treatment with telaprevir, and so is the average cost per SVR. Extensive sensitivity analyses verified robust model results. Conclusion: The inclusion of protease inhibitors to standard management for the therapy of patients with genotype 1 chronic HCV infection in Kazakhstan is predicted to be cost-effective using a typically applied willingness to pay threshold of USD37805 (3 times GDP per capita).    

References

1. Messina J, Humphreys I, Flaxman A et al (2015). Global Distribution and Preva-lence of Hepatitis C Virus Genotypes. Hepatology, 61(1): 77-87.
2. World Health Organization. Hepatitis C (2015). Factsheet no. 164. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs164/en/
3. El Khoury AC, Wallace C, Klimack WK et al (2012). Economic burden of hepatitis C-associated diseases: Europe, Asia Pacific, and the Americas. J Med Econ, 15(5): 887-96.
4. Whiteley D, Elliott L, Cunningham-Burley S, Whittaker A (2015). Health-Related Quali-ty of Life for the individuals with hepati-tis C: A narrative review. Int J Drug Policy, 26(10): 936-49.
5. Statistic data from Ministry of Health of Re-public of Kazakhstan (2015).
6. Wilkins T, Akhtar M, Gititu E, Jalluri C, Ramirez J (2015). Diagnosis and Man-agement of Hepatitis C. Am Fam Physician, 91(12):835-42.
7. Jensen DM, Marcellin P, Freilich B et al (2009). Re-treatment of the patients with chronic hepatitis C who do not respond to peginterferon-alpha2b: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med, 150(8): 528-40.
8. Poordad F, McCone J, Bacon BR et al (2011). Boceprevir for untreated chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med, 364: 1195-206.
9. Bacon BR, Gordon SC, Lawitz E, et al (2011). Boceprevir for previously treated chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med, 364: 1207-17.
10. Jacobson IM, McHutchison JG, Dusheiko G et al (2011). Telaprevir for previously untreated chronic hepatitis C virus infec-tion. N Engl J Med, 364:2405-2416.
11. Zeuzem S, Andreone P, Pol S et al (2011). Telaprevir for retreatment of HCV infec-tion. N Engl J Med, 364(25): 2417-28.
12. Singal AK, Guturu P, Hmoud B et al (2013). Evolving frequency and outcomes of liv-er transplantation based on etiology of liver disease. Transplantation, 95(5): 755-60.
13. Smith-Palmer J, Cerri K, Valentin W (2015). Achieving sustained virologic response in hepatitis C: a systematic review of the clinical, economic and quality of life bene-fits. BMC Infect Dis, 15: 19.
14. Thein HH, Yi Q, Dore GJ et al (2008). Es-timation of stage specific fibrosis pro-gression rates in chronic hepatitis C virus infection: A meta analysis and meta-regression. Hepatology, 48(2): 418-31.
15. Shiratori Y, Ito Y, Yokosuka O et al (2005). Antiviral therapy for cirrhotic hepatitis C: association with reduced hepatocellular carcinoma development and improved survival. Ann Intern Med, 142(2):105-14.
16. Chinnaratha MA, Jeffrey GP, MacQuillan G et al (2014). Prediction of morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic hepatitis C by non-invasive liver fibrosis models. Liver Int, 34(5):720-7.
17. Di Martino V, Crouzet J, Hillon P et al (2011). Long-term outcome of chronic hepatitis C in a population-based cohort and impact of antiviral therapy: a propen-sity-adjusted analysis. J Viral Hepat, 18(7): 493-505.
18. Park C, Jiang S, Lawson KA (2014). Efficacy and safety of telaprevir and boceprevir in patients with hepatitis C genotype 1: a meta-analysis. J Clin Pharm Ther, 39(1): 14-24.
19. National Clinical Practice Guidelines for HCV Management (2015).
http://www.rcrz.kz/index.php/ru/o-centre/struktura/center-standart?id=165
20. Jacobson IM, Kowdley KV, Kwo PY (2012). Anemia Management in the Era of Triple Combination Therapy for Chronic HCV. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y), 8(9 Suppl 6): 1–16.
21. World Health Organization (2011). Choos-ing Intervention’s that are Cost Effective (WHO-CHOICE): «Cost-effectiveness thresholds». http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/93/2/14-138206.pdf
22. Cooper C, Druyts E, Thorlund K et al (2012). Boceprevir and telaprevir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 infection: an indirect comparison meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag, 8: 105-130.
23. Republican Center for Healthcare Develop-ment (2015). Kazakhstan Health Tech-nology Assessment Guidelines. http://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=31573949
24. Simmons B, Saleem J, Heath K et al (2015). Long-Term Treatment Outcomes of Pa-tients Infected With Hepatitis C Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Survival Benefit of Achieving a Sus-tained Virological Response. Clin Infect Dis, 61(5): 730-40.
25. European Association for Study of Liver (2015). EASL Recommendations on Treatment of Hepatitis C 2015. J Hepatol, 63(1): 199-236.
Published
2018-12-01
How to Cite
1.
ALMADIYEVA A, IBRAYEV S, TURGAMBAYEVA A, KOSTYUK A, KHISMETOVA Z, AKHMETOVA Z. Cost-effectiveness of Oral Protease Inhibitors Co-administration versus Pegylated Interferon-Α2b and Ribavirin Only for the Patients with Hepatitis C Genotype 1 in Kazakhstan Health Care Settings. IJPH. 47(12):1845-53.
Section
Original Article(s)