ArticleHepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2014
Cost analysis of sofosbuvir/ribavirin versus sofosbuvir/simeprevir for genotype 1 hepatitis C virus in interferon-ineligible/intolerant individuals.
Article in Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
54 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Screening for Migrants in the EU/EEA: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review of model-based analyses.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Modelling Approaches for the Cost Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Treatment with Direct-Acting Antivirals.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir for the treatment of hepatitis C virus infection.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2015Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of 3-week response-guided triple direct-acting antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C infection: a phase 2, open-label, proof-of-concept study.The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2016Trial
- Simeprevir and Sofosbuvir (SMV-SOF) for 12 Weeks for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C Genotype 1 Infection: A Real World (Transplant) Hepatology Practice Experience.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2016Trial
- A Review of Heterogeneity in Comparative Economic Analysis, with Specific Considerations for the Decentralized US Setting and Patient-Centered Care.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Review
- Direct-Acting Antivirals Remain Cost-Effective Treatments for Chronic Hepatitis C in Australia Despite Changes to the Treated Population and the Availability of Retreatment: The Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir (MaviretInfectious diseases and therapy · 2024Article
- Is it time for China to prioritize pan-genotypic regimens for treating patients with hepatitis C?Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Article
- Scale-up of Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment in Prisons Is Both Cost-effective and Key to Hepatitis C Virus Elimination.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Identifying barriers and facilitators of the inclusion of pregnant individuals in hepatitis C treatment programs in the United States.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Changes in Cost-Effectiveness for Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Pharmacotherapy: The Case for Continuous Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Article
- Hepatitis C Cure Is Associated with Decreased Healthcare Costs in Cirrhotics in Retrospective Veterans Affairs Cohort.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2018Article
- Evaluation of health status in patients with hepatitis c treated with and without interferon.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2018Observational
- Hepatitis C disease transmission and treatment uptake: impact on the cost-effectiveness of new direct-acting antiviral therapies.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2017Article
- Functional evaluation of synthetic flavonoids and chalcones for potential antiviral and anticancer properties.Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters · 2017Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment in Hepatitis C-Infected Liver Transplant Candidates With Compensated Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Transplantation · 2017Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
unlabelledTreatment guidance for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) released by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) offers two options for interferon (IFN)-ineligible/intolerant individuals with genotype 1 infection: sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SOF/RBV) for 24 weeks or sofosbuvir/simeprevir (SOF/SMV) for 12 weeks. A 24-week course of SOF/RBV costs approximately US$169,000, with sustained virologic response (SVR) rates ranging from 52% to 84%; 12 weeks of SOF/SMV costs approximately $150,000, with SVR between 89% and 100%. Because SOF/SMV is currently used off-label, debate exists among physicians and payers about whether it should be prescribed and covered. This article presents a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two treatment regimens accounting for costs of drugs, treatment-related medical care, retreatment for individuals who do not achieve SVR, and natural history of continued HCV infection after failed retreatment. Analysis uses a Markov model with a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective. In the base-case scenario, SOF/SMV dominated SOF/RBV in a modeled 50-year-old cohort of treatment-naïve and -experienced subjects, excluding those who failed earlier therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir. SOF/SMV yielded lower costs and more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the average subject, compared to SOF/RBV ($165,336 and 14.69 QALYs vs. $243,586 and 14.45 QALYs, respectively). In base-case cost analysis, the SOF/SMV treatment strategy saved $91,590 per SVR, compared to SOF/RBV. Under all one-way sensitivity scenarios, SOF/SMV remained dominant and resulted in cost savings.
conclusionsThese results suggest that a 12-week course of SOF/SMV is a more cost-effective treatment for genotype 1 CHC than 24 weeks of SOF/RBV among IFN-ineligible/intolerant individuals, supporting the AASLD/IDSA guidance and offering implications for both clinical and regulatory decision making as well as pharmaceutical pricing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.