IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v34y2016i4d10.1007_s40273-015-0356-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness Modelling of Sofosbuvir-Containing Regimens for Chronic Genotype 5 Hepatitis C Virus Infection in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Ilanca Fraser

    (North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus))

  • Johanita Burger

    (North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus))

  • Martie Lubbe

    (North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus))

  • George Dranitsaris

    (Augmentium Pharma Consulting Inc.)

  • Mark Sonderup

    (University of Cape Town and Groote Schuur Hospital)

  • Tienie Stander

    (HEXOR (Pty) Ltd.)

Abstract

Background The recently launched nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir represents a significant turn in the treatment paradigm of chronic hepatitis C. While effective, sofosbuvir is also associated with a considerable cost. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of sofosbuvir-containing regimens in treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 5 (HCV-G5) mono-infection in South Africa (SA). Design We constructed a lifetime horizon decision-analytic Markov model of the natural history of HCV infection to evaluate the cost effectiveness of sofosbuvir–ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) monotherapy against sofosbuvir triple therapy (SOF-TT) (sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon and ribavirin [peg-INF/RBV]) and the current standard of care (SOC) (peg-INF/RBV) for patients with chronic HCV-G5 in the South African context. The model was populated with data from published literature, expert opinion and South African private sector cost data. The price modelled for sofosbuvir was the predicted South African private sector price of 82,129.32 South African rand (R) (US$7000) for 12 weeks. The analysis was conducted from a third-party payer perspective. Outcome Measures The outcome measures were discounted and undiscounted costs (in 2015 South African rand and US dollars) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results Outcomes from the cost-effectiveness model show that SOF/LDV yields the most favourable future health economic outcomes compared with SOF-TT and the current SOC in SA. Findings relating to the lifetime incremental cost per QALY gained for patients infected with HCV-G5 indicate that SOF/LDV dominated both SOF-TT and SOC, i.e. SOF/LDV is less costly and more effective. Conclusion Outcomes from this analysis suggest that at a price of R123,190 ($US10,500) for 12 weeks of SOF/LDV might be cost effective for South African patients infected with HCV-G5.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilanca Fraser & Johanita Burger & Martie Lubbe & George Dranitsaris & Mark Sonderup & Tienie Stander, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness Modelling of Sofosbuvir-Containing Regimens for Chronic Genotype 5 Hepatitis C Virus Infection in South Africa," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 403-417, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-015-0356-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0356-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-015-0356-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-015-0356-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louise Longworth & Stirling Bryan, 2003. "An empirical comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D in liver transplant patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1061-1067, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kontodimopoulos, Nick & Niakas, Dimitris, 2008. "An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients' life expectancy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 85-96, April.
    2. John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Helene Chevrou-Severac, 2017. "A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 21-31, December.
    3. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    4. Marra, Carlo A. & Woolcott, John C. & Kopec, Jacek A. & Shojania, Kamran & Offer, Robert & Brazier, John E. & Esdaile, John M. & Anis, Aslam H., 2005. "A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1571-1582, April.
    5. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Garry Barton & Tracey Sach & Michael Doherty & Anthony Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Kenneth Muir, 2008. "An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index , SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 237-249, August.
    7. Bruno Casal & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Berta Rivera, 2020. "Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1039-1048, September.
    8. Nick Kontodimopoulos & Michalis Argiriou & Nikolaos Theakos & Dimitris Niakas, 2011. "The impact of disease severity on EQ-5D and SF-6D utility discrepancies in chronic heart failure," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(4), pages 383-391, August.
    9. Jacinto Nogueira & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, 2015. "Using the SF-6D to measure the impact of alcohol dependence on health-related quality of life," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 347-356, May.
    10. Richard Grieve & Marina Grishchenko & John Cairns, 2009. "SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 15-23, February.
    11. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    12. Stirling Bryan & Louise Longworth, 2005. "Measuring health-related utility:," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 253-260, September.
    13. Janelle Seymour & Paul McNamee & Anthony Scott & Michela Tinelli, 2010. "Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ‐5D and SF‐6D responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(6), pages 683-696, June.
    14. Yaling Yang & John Brazier & Louise Longworth, 2015. "EQ-5D in skin conditions: an assessment of validity and responsiveness," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 927-939, December.
    15. Susanne Schmitz & Tatjana T. Makovski & Roisin Adams & Marjan Akker & Saverio Stranges & Maurice P. Zeegers, 2020. "Bayesian Hierarchical Models for Meta-Analysis of Quality-of-Life Outcomes: An Application in Multimorbidity," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 85-95, January.
    16. Fan Yang & Nancy Devlin & Nan Luo, 2019. "Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 99-105, February.
    17. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & Paula Ferrara & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2020. "Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, and comparison of their psychometric properties in a spinal postoperative Spanish population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 649-662, June.
    18. L. M. Lamers & C. A. M. Bouwmans & A. van Straten & M. C. H. Donker & L. Hakkaart, 2006. "Comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D utilities in mental health patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    19. Cecilia Quercioli & Gabriele Messina & Emanuela Barbini & Giovanni Carriero & Mara Fanì & Nicola Nante, 2009. "Importance of sociodemographic and morbidity aspects in measuring health-related quality of life: performances of three tools," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(4), pages 389-397, October.
    20. Richard Huan Xu & Ming Lu & Shuyang Zhang & Dong Dong, 2023. "EQ-5D and SF-6D health utility scores in patients with spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(8), pages 1399-1410, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-015-0356-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.