Farmeconomia. Health economics and therapeutic pathways 2016; 17(1): 7-12
http://dx.doi.org/10.7175/fe.v17i1.1225
Original research
Budget impact analysis of the use of daclatasvir in Italy for the treatment of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) genotype 3 patients
Umberto Restelli 1,2, Alfredo Alberti 3, Adriano Lazzarin 4,5, Marzia Bonfanti 1, Carmela Nappi 6, Davide Croce 1,2
1 Centre for Research on Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management (CREMS) – LIUC – Carlo Cattaneo University, Castellanza (VA), Italy
2 School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
3 Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
4 Department of Infectious Diseases, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
5 Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
6 Health Economic&Outocome Research Bristol Myers Squibb S.r.l., Rome, Italy
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infection represents a global health problem, leading to chronic cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), hepatic decompensation and liver transplant. The aim of the study was the evaluation of the impact on the budget of the Italian National Health Service (INHS) of the use of Daclatasvir (DCV) for the treatment of HCV genotype 3 in patients with advanced fibrosis.
METHODS: An analytical decision model with a five year time horizon was implemented. Two scenarios were considered: a. 100% of market share for Interferon (INF-α)+Ribavirin (RBV)+Sofosbuvir (SOF) for 12 weeks; b. SOF+DCV+RBV for 24 weeks with annual market shares of 50% in 2015 and 2016, 55% in 2017 and 2018, 60% in 2019, and INF-α+RBV+SOF for 12 weeks with the remaining market shares. Every annual cycle a percentage of patients equal to the effectiveness of the antiviral treatment reach a sustained virologic response and during the first year of treatment patients may experience treatment related adverse events. The costs considered (2015) are those of the antiviral therapy, and direct medical costs for health state and adverse events management. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: DCV would lead to an increase of the costs for the INHS (year 1 +21.31 millions, year 2 +21.35 millions, year 3 + 23.37 millions, year 4 + 23.26 millions and year 5 +16.37 millions). The sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of DCV is likely to have a short term impact on the INHS budget increasing resources use compared to the sole use of INF-α+RBV+SOF. However, a trend of reduction of the costs increase is observed due to the management of health states and adverse events which may lead to the possibility to reduce costs in the long term.
Keywords
Hepatitis C Virus; Daclatasvir; Budget Impact Analysis; Genotype 3
Disclosure
This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb
Background
Infections due to Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) represent a global health problem, affecting patients worldwide [1] with different prevalence and incidence among countries [2-4]. They may progress to chronic cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), hepatic decompensation and may lead to liver transplant [5].
The economic and social impact of the disease was investigated in different contexts, showing the cost increase for health services to manage HCV positive patients, leading to the conclusion that a lack of treatment of the pathology would lead to an increase of the disease burden due to HCV induced pathologies and the related worsening of the health condition of HCV positive patients [6-9].
Among HCV genotypes, genotype 3 is associated with higher HCC incidence and with accelerated fibrosis progression [10,11], and only two treatments are recommended by the Guidelines of the European Association for the Study of Liver for the treatment of HCV genotype 3 infected patients with compensated cirrhosis [12]: sofosbuvir (SOF) + daclatasvir (DCV) + ribavirine (RBV) for 24 weeks and peg interferon α (INF-α) + RBV + SOF for 12 weeks.
Due to the high cost of new HCV antiviral treatments and in absence of scientific evidence about their economic impact on the Italian National Health Service (NHS), the study presented aimed at evaluating the impact on the budget of the Italian NHS of the use of daclatasvir for the treatment of HCV genotype 3 infected patients compared with the sole use of INF-α + RBV + SOF.
Materials and methods
An analytical decision model was implemented to forecast the impact on the budget of the Italian NHS of the use of DCV in a five year time horizon for the treatment of HCV positive patients [13].
The patients eligible to antiviral treatment were those with a fibrosis rate of 3 and 4 (F3 and F4), as recommended by the Italian NHS. The number of eligible patients was estimated using published prevalence and incidence data, as reported in Table I.
|
Pts (n.) |
% of the previous category |
Source |
|
|
Italian population (1st January 2014) |
60,782,668 |
[14] |
|
|
HCV prevalence |
2,725,359 |
4.5 |
[15] |
|
HCV positive patients |
300,000 |
11.0 |
[16] |
|
HCV positive patients eligible to treatment (F3 – F4) |
24,600 |
8.2 |
[16] |
|
HCV genotipe 3 infected patients |
2,706 |
11.0 |
[17] |
Table I. Epidemiological data and number of HCV genotype 3 infected patients eligible to treatment
|
Health states transition |
Rate |
Source |
|
F3 → F4 |
0.112 |
[18] |
|
F4 → Decompensated cirrhosis |
0.039 |
[19] |
|
F4 → HCC |
0.014 |
|
|
Decompensated cirrhosis → HCC |
0.014 |
|
|
Decompensated cirrhosis → Transplant |
0.030 |
|
|
Decompensated cirrhosis → Death |
0.130 |
|
|
HCC → Transplant |
0.030 |
|
|
HCC → Death |
0.430 |
|
|
Transplant (Year 1) → Death |
0.210 |
|
|
Transplant (Year 2+) → Death |
0.057 |
Table II. Model’s health states transition rates
Two scenarios were structured based on the recommendations of the guidelines of the European Association for the Study of Liver [12]. In details the only two treatments recommended for cirrhotic genotype 3 HCV infected patients were considered in two scenarios, one not considering the use of DCV, therefore having a 100% market share of INF-α + RBV + SOF for 12 weeks from 2015 to 2019 (scenario 1); the second one introducing in the base case scenario SOF + DCV + RBV for 24 weeks with the following annual market shares: 50% in 2015 and 2016, 55% in 2017 and 2018, and 60% in 2019 (scenario 2). The market shares were based on experts’ opinions.
Patients enter the model in one of the following health states [15]: F3 (60%), F4 (16%), decompensated cirrhosis (3%), HCC (19%), liver transplant (2%). Each year patients may change their health states with probabilities based on previously published works [18,19], as presented in Table II.
Every annual cycle a percentage of patients, equal to the effectiveness of the antiviral treatment, reach a sustained virologic response (SVR). During the first year of treatment patients may experience treatment related adverse events (anemia and rash) with rates derived from literature. The effectiveness (SVR at 12 weeks after the end of the treatment) and adverse events rates are reported in Table III. Due to lack of data concerning the effectiveness and the efficacy of the treatments among patients affected with decompensated cirrhosis, HCC and eligible for liver transplant, the same effectiveness observed in patients with fibrosis stages 3 and 4 was considered.
The costs considered within the model are those of the antiviral therapy, direct medical costs for the management of the health state and direct medical costs for the management of the therapies’ adverse events.
|
Antiviral treatment |
SVR at 12 weeks (%) |
Anemia (%) |
Rash (%) |
|
SOF + DCV + RBV – 24 weeks |
100 [20] |
10.3 [21] |
6.9 [21] |
|
INF-α + RBV + SOF – 12 weeks |
92.1 [22-24] |
12.0 [22] |
12.0 [22] |
Table III. Effectiveness and adverse events rates of the two treatments
All costs refer to 2015, those derived from published articles were converted using the Italian yearly average inflation rates as reported by the International Monetary Fund [25]. The cost of the antiviral therapies considered were based on the price published in the Official Gazette of the Italian Medicines Agency [26-29]. The costs of the management of adverse events were calculated using an activity based costing approach, through interviews with clinical experts and are therefore based on the Italian real clinical practice. The cost of death was calculated by multiplying by 12.5 the average cost of 3 months in health states F3 and F4 [30]. The costs considered are reported in Table IV.
Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. The parameters changed were the cost of DCV (±10%); the effectiveness of DCV (-5%) and the number of patients eligible for antiviral treatment (±10%).
|
Cost category |
Cost yearly / per event / per treatment cycle (€) |
Source |
|
F3 |
302.0 |
[8] |
|
F4 |
426.8 |
[8] |
|
Decompensated cirrhosis |
6,720.2 |
[8] |
|
HCC |
7,470.0 |
[8] |
|
Transplant (year 1) |
84,093.8 |
[8] |
|
Transplant (year 2+) |
4,958.7 |
[8] |
|
Death |
1,138.7 |
Reprocessed from [8,30] |
|
Anemia |
38.7 |
Expert opinion |
|
Rash |
34.6 |
Expert opinion |
|
SOF + DCV + RBV – 24 weeks1 |
55,560.0 |
[26-29] |
|
INF-α + RBV + SOF – 12 weeks1 |
39,809.0 |
[26-29] |
Table IV. Costs considered in the model
1 Ex-factory negotiated net price considering confidential agreements
Results
The results of the analysis are reported in Table V.
|
Scenario |
Cost category |
Costs (€) |
|||||
|
Year 2015 |
Year 2016 |
Year 2017 |
Year 2018 |
Year 2019 |
Total |
||
|
Without DCV |
Treatment |
107,723,154 |
107,723,154 |
107,723,154 |
107,723,154 |
107,723,154 |
538.615.770 |
|
HS and AE |
9,705,386 |
14,603,436 |
14,835,723 |
15,056,818 |
24,168,852 |
78,370,216 |
|
|
Total |
117,428,540 |
122,326,590 |
122,558,877 |
122,779,972 |
131,892,006 |
616,985,986 |
|
|
With DCV |
Treatment |
129,034,257 |
129,034,257 |
131,165,367 |
131,165,367 |
133,296,478 |
653.695.726 |
|
HS and AE |
9,702,128 |
14,646,651 |
14,762,469 |
14,877,664 |
14,965,146 |
68.954.059 |
|
|
Total |
138,736,385 |
143,680,908 |
145,927,836 |
146,043,031 |
148,261,623 |
722.649.785 |
|
|
Budget impact |
Treatment |
21,311,103 |
21,311,103 |
23,442,213 |
23,442,213 |
25,573,324 |
115,079,956 |
|
HS and AE |
- 3,258 |
43,215 |
- 73,254 |
- 179,154 |
- 9,203,706 |
- 9,416,157 |
|
|
Total |
21,307,845 |
21,354,318 |
23,368,959 |
23,263,059 |
16,369,618 |
105,663,799 |
|
Table V. Impact on the budget of the Italian NHS of the use of DCV for the treatment of HCV genotype 3 infected patients
The use of DCV would lead to an increase of the costs for the Italian NHS in the five years considered in the analysis. In details, the costs increase is due to the cost of treatment, while the costs related to the management of patients conditions in terms of health state and to the management of the adverse events decrease in the first year (- 3,258 €), increase in year 2 (+ 43,215 €) and exponentially decrease in the last three years of the analysis (-73,254 €, -179,154 € and -9,203,706 €, respectively). The total impact on the budget of the Italian NHS increase, compared to the previous year in the second and third year (+ 0.22% and + 9.43%) and decrease in the last two years (- 0.45% and -29.63%).
The sensitivity analysis results are reported in Table VI.
All scenarios show the same trends of the base case analysis and show a budget impact with yearly variations lower than 6 million euros.
Figure 1. Impact on the budget of the Italian NHS of the use of DCV for the treatment of HCV genotype 3 infected patients
|
Scenario |
Costs (€) |
||||
|
Year 2015 |
Year 2016 |
Year 2017 |
Year 2018 |
Year 2019 |
|
|
Base case |
21,307,845 |
21,354,318 |
23,368,959 |
23,263,059 |
16,369,618 |
|
DCV cost -10% |
19,007,745 |
19,054,218 |
20,838,849 |
20,732,949 |
13,609,498 |
|
DCV cost +10% |
23,607,945 |
23,654,418 |
25,899,069 |
25,793,169 |
19,129,738 |
|
DCV effectiveness -5% |
21,307,845 |
21,325,040 |
23,419,717 |
23,384,465 |
16,570,992 |
|
Number of patients eligible to antiviral treatments -10% |
19,177,060 |
19,218,887 |
21,032,063 |
20,936,753 |
14,732,656 |
|
Number of patients eligible to antiviral treatments +10% |
23,438,629 |
23,489,750 |
25,705,855 |
25,589,365 |
18,006,579 |
|
DCV cost -10% and DCV effectiveness -5% |
19,007,745 |
19,024,940 |
20,889,607 |
20,854,355 |
13,810,872 |
|
DCV cost +10% and DCV effectiveness -5% |
23,607,945 |
23,625,140 |
25,949,827 |
25,914,575 |
19,331,112 |
|
DCV cost -10%, DCV effectiveness -5% and number of patients eligible to antiviral treatments +10% |
20,908,519 |
20,927,434 |
22,978,568 |
22,939,790 |
15,191,959 |
|
DCV cost +10%, DCV effectiveness -5% and number of patients eligible to antiviral treatments +10% |
25,968,739 |
25,987,654 |
28,544,810 |
28,506,032 |
21,264,223 |
|
DCV cost -10%, DCV effectiveness -5% and number of patients eligible to antiviral treatments -10% |
17,106,970 |
17,122,446 |
18,800,647 |
18,768,919 |
12,429,785 |
|
DCV cost +10%, DCV effectiveness -5% and number of patients eligible to antiviral treatments -10% |
21,247,150 |
21,262,626 |
23,354,845 |
23,323,117 |
17,398,001 |
|
DCV cost +10%, and number of patients eligible to antiviral treatments +10% |
25,968,739 |
26,019,860 |
28,488,976 |
28,372,486 |
21,042,711 |
|
DCV cost +10% and number of patients eligible to antiviral treatments -10% |
21,247,150 |
21,288,977 |
23,309,162 |
23,213,852 |
17,216,764 |
|
DCV cost -10%, and number of patients eligible to antiviral treatments +10% |
20,908,519 |
20,959,640 |
22,922,734 |
22,806,244 |
14,970,447 |
|
DCV cost -10% and number of patients eligible to antiviral treatments -10% |
17,106,970 |
17,148,797 |
18,754,964 |
18,659,654 |
12,248,548 |
Table VI. Yearly budget impact resulting from the sensitivity analysis performed
Discussion
New HCV antiviral treatments, due to their high effectiveness compared with previously available treatments, give the opportunity to cure the infection and substantially reduce its prevalence. Few studies investigated the cost effectiveness of DCV for the treatment of HCV genotype 3 infection [31,32], however to our knowledge its impact on national budget was not investigated so far. These economic evaluation may provide information on the efficiency of the resource allocation, but not on the sustainability of the treatment strategy.
The analysis performed show an increase of costs for the treatment of HCV genotype 3 infected patients for the Italian NHS in the five years considered. The cost increase is due to the cost of the antiviral treatment, while the direct medical costs related to the management of the patients’ health state and of therapy related adverse events constantly decrease after the second year. The dynamics of cost reduction (-73,254 €, -179,154 € and -9,203,706 € in the last three years of the analysis) suggest the possibility to compensate over the years the higher cost of the treatment with the cost reduction for the management of patients improved health conditions.
The model is based on published data related to the Italian context. However, the number of HCV infected patients and the rate of genotype 3 infection are still discussed within the scientific community. Moreover, the effectiveness of therapies in genotype 3 HCV infected patients is based on studies with limited samples due to the lower prevalence of this genotype compared with other HCV genotypes.
The main limit of the analysis is related to the 5 year time horizon considered. The higher effectiveness of DCV+ SOF + RBV compared with INF-α + RBV + SOF, lead to a decrease in the number of patients infected with HCV. The direct medical costs of the management of HCV infection increase in the long period (due to decompensated cirrhosis, HCC and liver transplant), therefore the budget impact of the use of DCV+ SOF + RBV is likely to be overestimated in the analysis presented, not considering the therapy’s long term benefits.
Conclusion
The use of DCV for the treatment of HCV genotype 3 infected patients in the Italian context is likely to have a short term impact on the budget of the Italian NHS increasing the resources use compared to the sole use of INF-α + RBV + SOF. However, in the five years analysis there is a trend of reduction in the cost of the management of health states and adverse events with DCV+ SOF + RBV, compared with INF-α + RBV + SOF, which may lead to the possibility to reduce costs in the long term.
Acknowledgements
Professional medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Lazzarin A, PhD, and Alfredo A, PhD, and was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb.
References
1. Lavanchy D. Evolving epidemiology of hepatitis C virus. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011; 17: 107-15; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03432.x
2. Mohd Hanafiah K, Groeger J, Flaxman AD, et al. Global epidemiology of hepatitis C virus infection: new estimates of age-specific antibody to HCV seroprevalence. Hepatology 2013; 57: 1333-42; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hep.26141
3. Gower E, Estes C, Blach S, et al. Global epidemiology and genotype distribution of the hepatitis C virus infection. J Hepatol 2014; 61(1 Suppl): S45-57; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2014.07.027
4. Mühlberger N, Schwarzer R, Lettmeier B, et al. HCV-related burden of disease in Europe: a systematic assessment of incidence, prevalence, morbidity, and mortality. BMC Public Health 2009; 9: 34; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-34
5. Westbrook RH, Dusheiko G. Natural history of hepatitis C. J Hepatol 2014; 61(1 Suppl): S58-68; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2014.07.012
6. Marcellusi A, Viti R, Capone A, Mennini FS. The economic burden of HCV-induced diseases in Italy. A probabilistic cost of illness model. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2015; 19: 1610-20
7. Vietri J, Prajapati G, El Khoury AC. The burden of hepatitis C in Europe from the patients’ perspective: a survey in 5 countries. BMC Gastroenterol 2013; 13: 16; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-13-16
8. Mennini FS, Marcellusi A, Andreoni M, et al. Health policy model: long-term predictive results associated with the management of hepatitis C virus-induced diseases in Italy. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2014; 6: 303-10
9. Razavi H, Elkhoury AC, Elbasha E, et al. Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) disease burden and cost in the United States. Hepatology 2013; 57: 2164-70; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hep.26218
10. Nkontchou G, Ziol M, Aout M, et al. HCV genotype 3 is associated with a higher hepatocellular carcinoma incidence in patients with ongoing viral C cirrhosis. J Viral Hepat 2011; 18: e516-22; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2893.2011.01441.x
11. Bochud PY, Cai T, Overbeck K, et al. Genotype 3 is associated with accelerated fibrosis progression in chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol 2009; 51: 655-66; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2009.05.016
12. European Association for Study of Liver. EASL Recommendations on Treatment of Hepatitis C 2015. J Hepatol 2015; 63: 199-236; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2015.03.025
13. Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, et al. Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health 2014; 17: 5-14; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291
14. Italian Institute of Statistics, Population data referred to 2014. Available at: http://demo.istat.it/pop2014/index.html
15. Ansaldi F, Bruzzone B, Salmaso S, et al. Different seroprevalence and molecular epidemiology patterns of hepatitis C virus infection in Italy. J Med Virol 2005; 76: 327-32; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmv.20376
16. Marcellusi A, Viti R, Capone A, et al. Costi diretti e indiretti assorbiti dalle patologie HCV-indotte in Italia: stima basata su una metodologia probabilistica di Cost of Illness. PharmacoEconomics Italian Research Articles 2014; 16: 23; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40276-014-0023-9
17. Italian Platform for the Study of Viral Hepatitis (PITER) – database
18. Thein HH, Yi Q, Dore GJ, et al. Estimation of stage-specific fibrosis progression rates in chronic hepatitis C virus infection: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Hepatology 2008; 48: 418-31; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hep.22375
19. Martin NK, Vickerman P, Miners A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus antiviral treatment for injection drug user populations. Hepatology 2012; 55: 49-57; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hep.24656
20. European Medicines Agency. Daklinza Annex 1 – Summary of products caracteristics. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003768/WC500172848.pdf
21. Sulkowski MS, Gardiner DF, Rodriguez-Torres M, et al. Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir for previously treated or untreated chronic HCV infection. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 211-21; http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1306218
22. Lawitz E, Lalezari JP, Hassanein T, et al. Sofosbuvir in combination with peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin for non-cirrhotic, treatment-naive patients with genotypes 1, 2, and 3 hepatitis C infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2013; 13: 401-8; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70033-1
23. Gane EJ, Stedman CA, Hyland RH, et al. Nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for hepatitis C. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 34-44; http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1208953
24. Lawitz E, Poordad FF, Pang PS, et al. Sofosbuvir and ledipasvir fixed-dose combination with and without ribavirin in treatment-naive and previously treated patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection (LONESTAR): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet 2014; 383: 515-23; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62121-2
25. International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook Database, April 2014. Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/index.aspx
26. Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). Regime di rimborsabilità e prezzo del medicinale per uso umano «Sovaldi» (sofosbuvir), autorizzata con procedura centralizzata europea dalla Commissione europea. (Determina n. 1353/2014). (14A09382) (GU Serie Generale n.283 del 5-12-2014)
27. Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). Regime di rimborsabilità e prezzo del medicinale per uso umano «Daklinza (daclatasvir)». (Determina n. 495/2015). (15A03388) (GU Serie Generale n.101 del 4-5-2015)
28. Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). Regime di rimborsabilità e prezzo di vendita del medicinale per uso umano «Ribavirina Mylan» (ribavirina) autorizzata con procedura centralizzata europea dalla Commissione europea. (Determina n. 38/2013). (13A00836) (GU Serie Generale n.30 del 5-2-2013)
29. Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). Autorizzazione all›immissione in commercio della specialità medicinale per uso umano «Roferon A» (GU Serie Generale n.84 del 9-4-2004)
30. Raitano M. The Impact of Death-Related Costs on Health-Care Expenditure: A Survey. ENEPRI Research Report No. 17/February 2006
31. Moshyk A, Martel MJ, Tahami Monfared AA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir-based regimen for treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection in Canada. J Med Econ 2016; 19: 181-92; http://dx.doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2015.1106546
32. Najafzadeh M, Andersson K, Shrank WH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of novel regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 407-19; http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M14-1152
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Email this article 
