Person:

Siebert, Uwe

Objective: The purpose of this health technology assessment (HTA), commissioned by the German Agency for HTA at the German Federal Ministry of Health and Social Security, was to systematically review the evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment (AVT) for initial chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and to apply these data in the context of the German health care system. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and HTAs that evaluated initial AVT for CHC. A modified version of the German Hepatitis C Model (GEHMO) -- a decision-analytic Markov model -- was used to determine long-term morbidity, life expectancy, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies. Model parameters were derived from German databases, international RCTs, and a Cochrane Review. Results: Overall, 9 RCTs, 2 HTA reports, 1 Cochrane review, and 2 meta-analyses examining medical effectiveness of antiviral combination therapy, as well as 7 economic evaluations, met the inclusion criteria. These studies indicate that combination therapy with peginterferon plus ribavirin produced the highest sustained virological response rates (54-61%), followed by interferon plus ribavirin with 38-54%, and interferon monotherapy with 11-21%. Based on international cost-effectiveness studies, interferon plus ribavirin is cost-effective compared to interferon monotherapy. No published articles were available regarding cost-effectiveness of peginterferon plus ribavirin. In our decision analysis, these findings were confirmed and the discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for peginterferon plus ribavirin was € 9,800 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared to interferon monotherapy (as the next best non-dominated strategy). Sensitivity analyses showed robust results across a wide range of model parameters. Conclusions: This HTA suggests that initial combination therapy prolongs life, improves quality of life, and is cost-effective in patients with CHC. Combination of peginterferon and ribavirin is the most effective and efficient treatment strategy among the examined options.

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a leading cause of chronic liver disease, end-stage cirrhosis, and liver cancer, but little is known about the burden of disease caused by the virus. We summarised burden of disease data presently available for Europe, compared the data to current expert estimates, and identified areas in which better data are needed. Methods: Literature and international health databases were systematically searched for HCV-specific burden of disease data, including incidence, prevalence, mortality, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and liver transplantation. Data were collected for the WHO European region with emphasis on 22 countries. If HCV-specific data were unavailable, these were calculated via HCV-attributable fractions. Results: HCV-specific burden of disease data for Europe are scarce. Incidence data provided by national surveillance are not fully comparable and need to be standardised. HCV prevalence data are often inconclusive. According to available data, an estimated 7.3–8.8 million people (1.1–1.3%) are infected in our 22 focus countries. HCV-specific mortality, DALY, and transplantation data are unavailable. Estimations via HCV-attributable fractions indicate that HCV caused more than 86000 deaths and 1.2 million DALYs in the WHO European region in 2002. Most of the DALYs (95%) were accumulated by patients in preventable disease stages. About one-quarter of the liver transplants performed in 25 European countries in 2004 were attributable to HCV. Conclusion: Our results indicate that hepatitis C is a major health problem and highlight the importance of timely antiviral treatment. However, data on the burden of disease of hepatitis C in Europe are scarce, outdated or inconclusive, which indicates that hepatitis C is still a neglected disease in many countries. What is needed are public awareness, co-ordinated action plans, and better data. European physicians should be aware that many infections are still undetected, provide timely testing and antiviral treatment, and avoid iatrogenic transmission.

Background: A recent recalibration of the ONCOTYROL Prostate Cancer Outcome and Policy (PCOP) Model, assuming that latent prostate cancer (PCa) detectable at autopsy might be detectable by screening as well, resulted in considerable worsening of the benefit-harm balance of screening. In this study, we used the recalibrated model to assess the effects of familial risk, quality of life (QoL) preferences, age, and active surveillance. Methods: Men with average and elevated familial PCa risk were simulated in separate models, differing in familial risk parameters. Familial risk was assumed to affect PCa onset and progression simultaneously in the base-case, and separately in scenario analyses. Evaluated screening strategies included one-time screening at different ages, and screening at different intervals and age ranges. Optimal screening strategies were identified depending on age and individual QoL preferences. Strategies were additionally evaluated with active surveillance by biennial re-biopsy delaying treatment of localized cancer until grade progression to Gleason score ≥ 7. Results: Screening men with average PCa risk reduced quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) even under favorable assumptions. Men with elevated familial risk, depending on age and disutilities, gained QALE. While for men with familial risk aged 55 and 60 years annual screening to age 69 was the optimal strategy over most disutility ranges, no screening was the preferred option for 65 year-old men with average and above disutilities. Active surveillance greatly reduced overtreatment, but QALE gains by averted adverse events were opposed by losses due to delayed treatment and additional biopsies. The effect of active surveillance on the benefit-harm balance of screening differed between populations, as net losses and gains in QALE predicted for screening without active surveillance in men with average and familial PCa risk, respectively, were both reduced. Conclusions: Assumptions about PCa risk and screen-detectable prevalence significantly affect the benefit-harm balance of screening. Based on the assumptions of our model, PCa screening should focus on candidates with familial predisposition with consideration of individual QoL preferences and age. Active surveillance may require treatment initiation before Gleason score progression to 7. Alternative active surveillance strategies should be evaluated in further modeling studies.

Background: Due to high survival rates and the relatively small benefit of adjuvant therapy, the application of personalized medicine (PM) through risk stratification is particularly beneficial in early breast cancer (BC) to avoid unnecessary harms from treatment. The new 21-gene assay (OncotypeDX, ODX) is a promising prognostic score for risk stratification that can be applied in conjunction with Adjuvant!Online (AO) to guide personalized chemotherapy decisions for early BC patients. Our goal was to evaluate risk-group specific cost effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for women with early stage BC in Austria based on AO and ODX risk stratification. Methods: A previously validated discrete event simulation model was applied to a hypothetical cohort of 50-year-old women over a lifetime horizon. We simulated twelve risk groups derived from the joint application of ODX and AO and included respective additional costs. The primary outcomes of interest were life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER). The robustness of results and decisions derived were tested in sensitivity analyses. A cross-country comparison of results was performed. Results: Chemotherapy is dominated (i.e., less effective and more costly) for patients with 1) low ODX risk independent of AO classification; and 2) low AO risk and intermediate ODX risk. For patients with an intermediate or high AO risk and an intermediate or high ODX risk, the ICER is below 15,000 EUR/QALY (potentially cost effective depending on the willingness-to-pay). Applying the AO risk classification alone would miss risk groups where chemotherapy is dominated and thus should not be considered. These results are sensitive to changes in the probabilities of distant recurrence but not to changes in the costs of chemotherapy or the ODX test. Conclusions: Based on our modeling study, chemotherapy is effective and cost effective for Austrian patients with an intermediate or high AO risk and an intermediate or high ODX risk. In other words, low ODX risk suggests chemotherapy should not be considered but low AO risk may benefit from chemotherapy if ODX risk is high. Our analysis suggests that risk-group specific cost-effectiveness analysis, which includes companion prognostic tests are essential in PM. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-017-3603-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.