Objectives: This study assesses whether pegylated interferon and ribavirin is cost-effective compared with no antiviral treatment provided in routine clinical practice, for different patient subgroups.

Methods: The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) uses a Markov decision model to estimate the lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of antiviral treatment compared with no treatment. The model is populated with data on sustained virological responses, costs, and transition probabilities all taken from a large representative sample of UK cases and centers (Trent HCV database).

Results: The CEA found that pegylated interferon and ribavirin was cost-effective for most patient subgroups. The CEA found that for patients with genotype non-1, the intervention led to cost reductions and gains of at least 0.5 QALYs. For genotype 1 cases with mild or moderate disease, and younger cirrhotic patients (aged 40 or less), costs per QALY remained below £20,000 ($40,000 or €29,000). For genotype 1 cases with cirrhosis aged 50, the mean cost per QALY rose to over £60,000 ($120,000 or €87,000).

Conclusions: The study concludes that, based on cost and effectiveness data collected from routine clinical practice, treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin is generally cost-effective. The study shows that there are variations according to patient subgroup and for older (aged 50 or over) genotype 1 patients with cirrhosis, antiviral treatment appears less cost-effective.

Objectives: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Conclusions: 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.