Cost-effectiveness Of Antiviral Treatment Research Articles

Hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma

With respect to hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention measures have been or should be adopted. In primary prevention, behavioral patterns represent an important risk factor for HBV infection and should be controlled, discouraging those favoring infection. Interferon treatment shows a modest effect in reducing HCC risk in treated patients, but the data obtained cannot be converted in clinical practice. Nucleoside analogs significantly reduce, but do not abolish, HCC risk in patients with cirrhosis, and should therefore be used in patients with cirrhosis and also to diminish the risk of the other potential complications. With respect to secondary prevention, surveillance with semiannual ultrasound examination is indicated in patients with HBV-related cirrhosis as well as in other subgroups of patients, depending on racial and geographical pattern. Finally, the role of interferon in tertiary prevention of HCC relapse after radical treatment is still under debate; some evidence in favor of the treatment is present, but side effects due to toxicity are frequent and severe enough to limit patients' compliance substantially. As there is definitely no agreement on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment in HCC prevention, there is still a need for well-constructed, large size, and randomized prospective trials to confirm what is still required based on expert opinion rather than on sound scientific evidence.

Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment in hepatitis C

We systematically reviewed the evidence for long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment in patients with chronic hepatitis C. We performed a systematic literature search on the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of AVT in hepatitis C (1990-March 2007), and included health technology assessment (HTA) reports, systematic reviews, long-term clinical trials, economic studies conducted alongside clinical trials and decision-analytic modelling studies. All costs were converted to 2005euro. Antiviral therapy with peginterferon plus ribavirin in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis C was the most effective (3.6-4.7 life years gained [LYG]) treatment and was reasonably cost-effective (cost-saving to 84 700euro/quality adjusted life years [QALY]) when compared to interferon plus ribavirin. Some results also suggest cost-effectiveness (below 8400euro/(QALY) of re-treatment in nonresponders/relapsers. Results for patients with persistently normal alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels or with special co-morbidities (e.g. HIV) or risk profiles were rare. We conclude that antiviral therapy may prolong life, improve long-term health-related quality-of-life and be reasonably cost-effective in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis C as well as in former relapsers/nonresponders. Further research is needed in patients with specific co-morbidities or risk profiles.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of initial combination therapy with interferon/peginterferon plus ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C in Germany: A health technology assessment commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Health and Social Security

The purpose of this health technology assessment (HTA), commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Health and Social Security, was to systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment (AVT) with interferon (INF) or peginterferon (PegIFN) in combination with ribavirin (RBV) in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and to apply these data in the context of the German health-care system. We performed a systematic literature search on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of AVT and summarized results using meta-analysis and evidence tables. We applied the German Hepatitis C Model (GEHMO), a decision-analytic Markov model, to determine long-term clinical effectiveness, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of the examined treatment strategies. Model parameters were derived from German databases, published international randomized clinical trials (RCT), and a Cochrane Review. Overall, nine RCTs, two HTA reports, one Cochrane review, two meta-analyses, and seven economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. These studies indicate that PegIFN + RBV achieved the highest sustained virological response rates (SVR) (54-61 percent), followed by IFN + RBV (38-54 percent) and IFN monotherapy (11-21 percent). Based on our meta-analysis, PegIFN + RBV reduced cases without SVR by 17 percent compared with INF + RBV. International cost-effectiveness studies indicate that INF+ RBV is cost-effective when compared with INF monotherapy. For PegIFN + RBV, our decision analysis yielded an ICER of 9,800 Euros per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This HTA suggests that initial combination therapy prolongs life, improves quality of life, and is cost-effective in patients with CHC. Peginterferon plus ribavirin is the most effective and efficient treatment among the examined options. However, because not all chronic hepatitis C patients will develop progressive liver disease, a thorough assessment of the eligibility and appropriateness of treatment with combination therapy must be performed in each individual patient.

Antiviral therapies for herpes zoster infections. Are they economically justifiable?

Antiviral treatment of herpes zoster is controversial because of uncertain benefits and relatively high costs. Most studies show that antiviral therapy lessens acute herpes zoster symptoms and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Current clinical recommendations support antiviral treatment of severely symptomatic herpes zoster in all adults, and mild herpes zoster in those 50 or 60 years of age or older. However, it is unclear if these recommended strategies are cost effective. Published studies of herpes zoster costs and the effect of antiviral therapy on costs and quality of life have significant variation in study design and results, as well as many shortcomings in the data. Thus, definitive economic recommendations cannot be made based on the present data. Another approach, which we have used, is to develop a 'reference case' analysis using decision-analysis techniques and the available data to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness of antiviral treatment in patients of differing age and herpes zoster severity. In the baseline analysis, parameter values and assumptions were consistently slightly biased against antiviral use. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We assumed that antiviral treatment did not change PHN risk, but decreased PHN duration in patients older than 50 years. PHN risk increased with age and with acute herpes zoster severity as seen in published data. Mild acute herpes zoster was assumed to have a utility value of 0.9 and severe acute herpes zoster a value of 0.7 on a scale where 0 = death and 1 = perfect health. Treating mildly symptomatic acute herpes zoster cost $US89,200/QALY gained in 40-year-olds, $US47,700/QALY in 60-year-olds and $US40,700/QALY in 70-year-olds (1995 values). Results were most sensitive to variation of antiviral costs (baseline $US134), but changes in acute symptom relief, PHN risk, duration, costs and utility, and antiviral effect on PHN duration increased costs/QALY above $US50,000 in 60- and 70-year-olds in extremes of parameter ranges. However, no variation resulted in treatment of mild illness in 40-year-olds to fall below $US50,000/QALY gained. Treatment of severe acute herpes zoster cost $US29,700, $US18,000 and $US16,500/QALY gained in 40-, 60- and 70-year-olds, respectively. Results were sensitive to variation of antiviral costs (> $US225) and acute symptom relief (< 21%) in 40-year-olds. Based on this analysis, antiviral therapy of herpes zoster seems economically justifiable for mildly symptomatic acute herpes zoster in patients aged 50 years and older, and for severely symptomatic acute herpes zoster in all adults.

Cost effectiveness of newer antiviral agents for herpes zoster: is the evidence spotty?

Famciclovir and valaciclovir were approved for use in the treatment of herpes zoster despite controversy over antiviral therapy in zoster due to high costs and uncertain benefits. To explore these issues, a Markov decision model was developed, and the incremental cost effectiveness of antiviral treatment for herpes zoster was estimated using these agents compared with no antiviral therapy. A third-party payer perspective was taken. Sensitivity analyses were performed, modeling differences in antiviral efficacy, postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) risk, and other illness parameters. Treatment of severely symptomatic acute zoster was found reasonable from a cost-effectiveness standpoint in base-case and worst-case scenarios. Treatment of mildly symptomatic acute zoster was more expensive but would likely be considered cost effective in scenarios where PHN risk was higher, PHN duration longer, or antiviral shortening of PHN greater. Further research comparing antiviral efficacy in herpes zoster is needed.