Cost Utility of Telaprevir–PR (Peginterferon–Ribavirin) Versus Boceprevir–PR and Versus PR Alone in Chronic Hepatitis C in The Netherlands
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Vellopoulou, A., van Agthoven, M., van der Kolk, A. et al. Appl Health Econ Health Policy (2014) 12: 647. doi:10.1007/s40258-014-0120-y
- 178 Downloads
The hepatitis C virus may lead to cirrhosis, liver cancer, liver transplant, and increased mortality. With standard treatment peginterferon-alpha and ribavirin (PR), sustained viral response (SVR) was less than 50 %. SVR rates improve greatly when PR is combined with telaprevir or boceprevir.
The aim of this study was to assess the cost utility of telaprevir-peginterferon-ribavirin (TPR) versus PR and boceprevir-peginterferon-ribavirin (BPR) in treatment-naïve (TN) and treatment-experienced (TE) adults with chronic hepatitis C in the Netherlands.
A Markov model with a lifelong time horizon and annual cycles was developed. Clinical data stemmed from phase III trials (TPR vs PR, BPR vs PR). A mixed treatment comparison (MTC) was developed to compare TPR and BPR indirectly. Unit costs and utilities based on EQ-5D were established in a Dutch cross-sectional study. Cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was calculated according to the societal perspective.
Treating TN patients with TPR generates 1.12 additional QALYs with €333 additional cost compared with PR, resulting in an incremental cost–utility ratio of €299/QALY. In TE patients, TPR dominates PR with cost savings (−€7,819) and 1.63 additional QALYs. TPR dominates BPR yielding additional QALYs (0.26 in TN; 0.71 in TE) and cost savings (−€7,296, −€18,144, respectively).
TPR seems a cost-effective alternative to PR in TN patients and dominant in TE patients. TPR was a dominant, more effective and less costly alternative to BPR in both patient types. The cost effectiveness of both TPR and BPR is well below generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds and may be considered cost effective.