Volume 16, Issue 6 pp. 748-759

Original Article

Free Access

Timing of hepatitis C antiviral therapy in patients with advanced liver disease: A decision analysis model^†^‡

Sammy Saab,

Corresponding Author

Sammy Saab

[email protected]

Departments of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Department of Surgery, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Telephone: 310-206-6705; FAX: 310-206-4197

Pfleger Liver Institute, UCLA Medical Center, 200 Medical Plaza, Suite 214, Los Angeles, CA 90095Search for more papers by this author

Douglas R. Hunt,

Douglas R. Hunt

Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA

Search for more papers by this author

Michael A. Stone,

Michael A. Stone

Departments of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Search for more papers by this author

Amy McClune,

Amy McClune

Departments of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Department of Surgery, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Search for more papers by this author

Myron J. Tong,

Myron J. Tong

Departments of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Department of Surgery, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Huntington Medical Research Institutes, Pasadena, CA

Search for more papers by this author

Sammy Saab,

Corresponding Author

Sammy Saab

[email protected]

Departments of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Department of Surgery, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Telephone: 310-206-6705; FAX: 310-206-4197

Pfleger Liver Institute, UCLA Medical Center, 200 Medical Plaza, Suite 214, Los Angeles, CA 90095Search for more papers by this author

Douglas R. Hunt,

Douglas R. Hunt

Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA

Search for more papers by this author

Michael A. Stone,

Michael A. Stone

Departments of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Search for more papers by this author

Amy McClune,

Amy McClune

Departments of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Department of Surgery, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Search for more papers by this author

Myron J. Tong,

Myron J. Tong

Departments of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Department of Surgery, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Huntington Medical Research Institutes, Pasadena, CA

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 23 March 2010

https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.22072

Citations: 56

^†

No author has a conflict of interest to declare with respect to the content of this study. No part of this study was funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

^‡

See Editorial on Page 697

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Antiviral therapy for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is used before and after liver transplantation. The objective of this study was to determine the most cost-effective timing for pegylated interferon/ribavirin therapy in patients with advanced liver disease infected with genotype 1 HCV. A Markov model was constructed to compare treatment strategies: (1) no treatment, (2) antiviral therapy in patients with compensated cirrhosis, (3) antiviral therapy in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, and (4) antiviral therapy in patients with progressive fibrosis due to recurrent HCV post-transplantation. Outcomes of interest included the total cost per patient, number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved, cost per QALY saved, number of deaths and hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), and number of transplants required. Compared to the no–antiviral treatment strategy, treatment during compensated cirrhosis increased QALYs by 0.950 and saved $55,314. Treatment during decompensated cirrhosis increased QALYs by 0.044 and saved $5511. Treatment during posttransplant advanced recurrence increased QALYs by 0.061 and saved $3223. Treatment of patients with compensated cirrhosis resulted in 119 fewer deaths, 54 fewer HCCs, and 66 fewer transplants with respect to the no-treatment strategy. The model was sensitive to the rate of graft failure in patients with and without sustained virological response. The model was otherwise robust to all variables tested in sensitivity analysis. In conclusion, the treatment of patients with compensated cirrhosis was found to be the most cost-effective strategy and resulted in improved survival and decreased cost in comparison with all other strategies. This study provides pharmacoeconomic evidence in support of treating HCV in patients with compensated cirrhosis before progression to more advanced liver disease. Liver Transpl 16:748-759, 2010. © 2010 AASLD.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the most common indication for liver transplantation in the United States.1 Unfortunately, post–liver transplantation outcomes are worse for those who undergo transplantation for HCV than for those with many other etiologies of liver disease.2-4 Reinfection of the graft is universal,5-7 and progression to graft cirrhosis and its subsequent complications can be rapid and may compromise patient and graft survival.8

Antiviral therapy for HCV can eliminate the virus,9 arrest the development of fibrosis,10-16 and reduce the incidence of complications of progressive disease both before and after transplantation.17-22 A number of strategies have emerged for antiviral treatment of patients with HCV cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation. Unfortunately, antiviral treatment of patients with cirrhosis, especially those with decompensated disease, is often limited by side effects, and early discontinuation is common. Alternatively, treatment can be administered post-transplant once reinfection has occurred. This strategy is also limited by significant side effects, with high rates of dose reductions (73%) and discontinuations of treatment (27.6%).21

Combination therapy with pegylated interferon/ribavirin (PEG/RBV) is the standard of care of antiviral therapy for chronic HCV.23 Unfortunately, rates of sustained virological response (SVR) among PEG/RBV-treated patients with cirrhosis pre-transplant and among those treated after liver transplantation are lower than rates among noncirrhotic HCV patients.24 In this study, a Markov model was used to compare the cost effectiveness of HCV treatment at different stages of advanced HCV disease over 17 years in a cohort of 4000 patients entering the model with compensated cirrhosis.

Abbreviations:

AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; CT, computed tomography; EVR, early virological response; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HCV, hepatitis C virus; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; IFN/RBV, interferon/ribavirin; NA, not applicable; PEG/RBV, pegylated interferon/ribavirin; QALY, quality-adjusted life year; SVR, sustained virological response.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Decision Model

We compared 3 strategies for administering antiviral therapy using PEG/RBV in patients with HCV genotype 1. All patients entered the model with the diagnosis of compensated cirrhosis. A 4000-patient entry cohort of 55-year-old patients was evenly divided into 4 different treatment strategies (Fig. 1). In the control strategy, no antiviral treatment was administered (Fig. 1A). In the first treatment strategy, antiviral treatment was initiated in patients with compensated HCV cirrhosis (Fig. 1B). In the second treatment strategy, patients were treated only after the development of decompensated liver disease (Fig. 1C). Decompensated cirrhosis was defined as clinical evidence of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, or variceal bleeding. Patients without a history of these complications and also without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were defined as having compensated cirrhosis.19, 25, 26 In the third treatment strategy, patients were treated only after the development of histological evidence of advanced fibrosis due to HCV recurrence post-transplantation based on annual protocol graft biopsies (Fig. 1D). Advanced fibrosis due to recurrent HCV was defined histologically as a METAVIR fibrosis score ≥2 on protocol graft biopsy in accordance with recommendations from a large meta-analysis of treatment of posttransplant HCV.21 Patients assigned to treatment strategies received antiviral therapy only upon reaching the natural history state at which they were designated to be treated. The goal duration of therapy was 48 weeks. The mean duration of therapy in the treatment during decompensation strategy was 30 weeks.25, 26 Rates of dose discontinuation due to side effects and absence of early virological response (EVR) were derived from a literature review (Table 1).19, 21, 24-27 Patients were not eligible for repeated courses of antiviral therapy.

Details are in the caption following the image — **Figure 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Schematic of the Markov chain and antiviral treatment strategies. The treatment strategies include (A) no antiviral treatment, (B) treatment during compensated cirrhosis, (C) treatment during decompensated cirrhosis, and (D) treatment during posttransplant advanced histological recurrence. At each stage, patients can (1) remain at the current stage (curved arrow), (2) progress to the next stage (straight arrow), or (3) die (right-angle arrow). [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at www.interscience.wiley.com.]

Table 1. Clinical Assumptions

Variable	Baseline	Range	References
SVR
Compensated cirrhosis	0.30	0.15-0.6	19, 58
Decompensated cirrhosis	0.143	0.072-0.286	25, 26
Post-transplant	0.255	0.128-0.51	15, 22, 46-48, 59-65
EVR
Post-transplant (measured)	0.642	0.321-1	15, 59, 61-63, 66
EVR/SVR ratio post-transplant	2.07		21
Compensated cirrhosis (calculated)	0.549	0.275-1
Decompensated cirrhosis (calculated)	0.296	0.148-0.592
Post-transplant (calculated)	0.523	0.262-1
Discontinuation of treatment due to side effects
Compensated cirrhosis	0.088	0.044-0.176	12, 19, 27
Decompensated cirrhosis	0.163	0.082-0.326	25, 26
Post-transplant	0.218	0.109-0.436	21
Discontinuation of treatment due to failed EVR and side effects
Compensated cirrhosis	0.539	0.27-1	12, 19, 27
Decompensated cirrhosis	0.867	0.434-1	25, 26
Post-transplant	0.695	0.348-1	21
Use of filgrastim
Compensated cirrhosis	0.26	0.13-0.52	12, 19, 27
Decompensated cirrhosis (PEG/RBV and IFN/RBV)	0.324	0.162-0.648	25, 26, 67, 68
Post-transplant	0.473	0.237-0.946	15, 22, 45, 48, 63
Use of epoetin
Compensated cirrhosis	0.205	0.103-0.52	12, 19, 27
Decompensated cirrhosis (PEG/RBV and IFN/RBV)	0.396	0.198-0.792	25, 26, 68, 69
Post-transplant	0.46	0.23-0.92	15, 22, 44-47, 62
Decompensation
Ascites as initial decompensation event	0.477	0.239-0.954	33
Liver transplantation
Transplant rate	0.37	0.185-0.74	32
Transplant rate, HCC	0.14	0.07-0.28	87-90
Rate of rejection, general	0.03	0.015-0.06	70
Rate of rejection during antiviral treatment	0.05	0.025-0.1	15, 44-48, 60-65, 71-74
Liver biopsy
Complication rate	0.003	0.0015-0.006	75
Mortality from biopsy	0.00018	0.00009-0.00036	75

A Markov model was constructed with the TreeAge Pro Health Module (2006; TreeAge Software, Williamstown, MA). Patients were followed through the model for 17 years or until death with a mean life expectancy of 72 years. Life expectancy was derived with the declining exponential approximation of life expectancy method.28-31 Outcomes of interest included the total cost per patient, number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved, cost per QALY saved, number of deaths and HCCs, and number of transplants required. The commonly used incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold of $50,000 per QALY saved was implemented.

Natural History

In our model, patients had an annual probability of progressing to a more advanced disease state based on assumptions guided by an extensive review of the published literature (Table 2). The transplantation rate of patients with decompensated cirrhosis on the waiting list was estimated from rates published in the United Network for Organ Sharing database from 2007.32

Table 2. Annual Transition Probabilities and Costs

Variable	Baseline	Range	References
Annual transition probabilities
Compensated cirrhosis with SVR to
Decompensated cirrhosis	0.001	0.00005-0.002	17-19, 34
HCC	0.008	0.004-0.016	17, 18, 33, 34
Compensated cirrhosis without SVR to
Decompensated cirrhosis	0.031	0.016-0.062	17, 18, 76
HCC	0.027	0.014-0.054	17, 18, 33, 34, 76
Decompensated cirrhosis to
HCC	0.07	0.035-0.14	77
Post-transplant with SVR to
Graft failure	0.06	0.03-0.12	4
Post-transplant without SVR to
Histological recurrence (METAVIR ≥ 2)	0.15	0.075-0.30	6, 78, 79
Graft failure	0.08	0.04-0.16	4, 5, 38, 80
Post-transplant with advanced histological recurrence to
Graft failure	0.08	0.04-0.16	78
Post-transplant without advanced histological recurrence to
Graft failure	0.06	0.03-0.12	78
Mortality rate
General population, 55 years old	0.0006295	0.00315-0.0126	81
Compensated cirrhosis with SVR	0.008	0.004-0.016	17, 18, 34
Compensated cirrhosis without SVR	0.021	0.011-0.042	17, 18, 33, 34, 76
Decompensated cirrhosis	0.138	0.069-0.276	33, 77
Costs
PEG/RBV	37,904	18,952-75,808	51
Filgrastim, 11 months	10,885	5442-21,770	51
Epoetin, 11 months	27,731	13,866-55,462	51
Norfloxacin	138	69-276	51
Clinic visits/labs during antiviral treatment	2505	1253-5010	50
AFP	25	13-50	50
Abdominal ultrasound	153	77-306	50
CT scan of chest	308	154-616	50
CT scan of abdomen/pelvis	341	171-682	50
Liver biopsy averaged for complications	1370	685-2740	51
Radiology-guided liver biopsy averaged for complications	3133	1567-6266	50, 51
Rejection	6943	3472-13,886	82
Compensated cirrhosis	1072	536-2144	83
Decompensated cirrhosis	13,848	6924-27,696	29
HCC	43,034	21,517-86,068	83
Liver transplantation (first year)	141,724	70,862-283,448	83
Liver transplantation (subsequent years)	24,750	12,375-49,500	83
Death	50,825	25,413-101,650	84

NOTE: Transition probabilities are expressed as rates per year. Costs have been adjusted to 2009 US dollars. Utilities are expressed in quality-adjusted life years.

Treatment Response

Response to treatment was classified as SVR or no SVR. SVR was defined as an undetectable HCV viral load at 6 months after completion of treatment. In the model, patients who achieved SVR had lower rates of progression to more advanced disease states (Table 2).15, 17, 18, 21, 33-36 In all treated patients, the HCV viral load was estimated 3 months after treatment to determine whether EVR occurred. EVR was defined as a ≥2-log decrease in the HCV viral load compared to the baseline value.23

Model Assumptions

1
Repeat liver transplantation is not available.
2
Patients who fail to achieve SVR have a prognosis similar to the prognosis of those who do not receive treatment.
3
The natural history of liver transplant recipients who achieve SVR is the same as that of patients who undergo transplantation for hepatitis B virus (i.e., a patient population with rates of disease recurrence and graft failure lower than those of patients who undergo transplantation for HCV without SVR).4
4
Progression from compensated cirrhosis to decompensated cirrhosis is irreversible.
5
The finding of fibrosis by annual posttransplant protocol biopsy correlates with a high risk for worsening recurrent graft disease and ultimate graft failure.8, 37-39
6
Patients with HCC who are not transplant candidates have an average lifespan of 1 year.
7
Patients who do not achieve EVR discontinue therapy early as they are unlikely to achieve SVR.
8
Patients enter the study without contraindications to therapy and are assumed to be candidates for treatment during the entirety of the study unless they develop HCC.

HCC

In the pretransplant setting, all patients underwent semiannual screening for HCC using abdominal ultrasound and serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP).40-42 Patients with evidence of HCC based on ultrasound or elevated AFP underwent computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen/pelvis followed by CT-guided biopsy to confirm the diagnosis of HCC. Patients who underwent transplantation for HCC were screened for recurrent HCC with semiannual chest CT scans and serum AFP measurements for 2 years post-transplant and then annually thereafter (the institutional practice of the University of California at Los Angeles).

Growth Factors

Growth factors were used for the management of anemia and neutropenia at rates derived from published estimates (Table 1). Erythropoietin was initiated for hemoglobin levels less than 10 g/dL,15, 22, 26, 43-47 and filgrastim was initiated when the absolute neutrophil count descended below 750 mm³.15, 26, 43, 45, 48 When used, growth factors were initiated 1 month after the initiation of therapy and were continued throughout treatment. The dosage of antiviral therapy was reduced for patients requiring growth factors. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis prophylaxis with norfloxacin was provided to all treated patients with decompensated cirrhosis who had ascites.49

Costs

Estimations of cost were obtained from published studies, from Medicare reimbursement rates for 2009, and from Red Book 2009.50, 51 The costs of administration of antiviral therapy, including costs of antiviral medications, growth factors, and monthly clinic visits and laboratory tests during treatment, were calculated and adjusted for rates of premature discontinuation of therapy due to side effects or absence of EVR. In the posttransplant setting, the costs of performing annual protocol liver biopsies and managing subsequent complications were included, as well as the costs of managing rejection during antiviral treatment. Cost estimates were converted to 2009 US dollars with the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index inflation calculator (Table 2).52 All costs were discounted by 3% per year.28, 29 The study perspective was one of a third-party payer. Quality-of-life estimates were obtained with weighted averages from studies using the Short Form 36 Health Survey for quality-of-life estimation (Table 3).53-57

Table 3. Utilities

Health State	Utility	Reference
Compensated cirrhosis	0.76	53
Decompensated cirrhosis	0.69	53
Hepatocellular carcinoma	0.67	53
Post–liver transplant	0.77	53
Death	0.00	53

NOTE: Utilities rate health-related quality of life on a scale from 0 (death) to 1 (normal health).

Sensitivity Analysis

Univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to assess whether the results of the model were robust. All variables used in the model for clinical assumptions, annual transition probabilities, and costs (Tables 1 and 2) were tested over a wide range of values in 1-way sensitivity analysis to determine their impact on cost effectiveness. All values ranged from 50% of the baseline literature values to 200% of the literature values. The model was considered to be sensitive to a variable if modification of that variable resulted in an ICER of less than $50,000/QALY in comparison with the preferred strategy.

RESULTS

Our model demonstrated that antiviral therapy for patients with compensated cirrhosis led to the best outcomes. The treatment of patients with compensated cirrhosis resulted in 119 fewer deaths, 54 fewer HCCs, and 66 fewer transplants with respect to patients in the no-treatment strategy group. In addition, treatment resulted in cirrhosis regression in 44 patients. On the other hand, antiviral therapy in patients with decompensated liver disease led to 10 fewer deaths with respect to the no-treatment strategy. Antiviral therapy in liver transplant recipients with advanced fibrosis due to recurrent hepatitis C disease led to 12 fewer deaths in comparison with the no-treatment cohort. All patients in the compensated treatment strategy group received antiviral treatment, whereas 204 and 101 patients were treated in the decompensated and posttransplant recurrence strategy groups, respectively.

Despite the additional cost of treating a higher number of patients with antiviral therapy, treatment during compensated cirrhosis was associated with lower costs than the other antiviral strategies. The total cost per patient in the compensated cirrhosis treatment cohort was $300,159. In contrast, the cost per patient was similar between patients in the treatment during decompensated cirrhosis cohort and patients in the treatment during posttransplant recurrence cohort ($349,962 and $352,250, respectively). The cost per patient for untreated patients was $355,473, which represents the cost of medical care incurred by complications of worsening cirrhosis without antiviral therapy (Table 4).

Table 4. Summary of Costs, Efficacy, and Cost Effectiveness

Antiviral Strategy	Total Cost per Patient	Incremental Cost	QALYs	Incremental QALYs	ICER
No antiviral treatment	355,473	NA	9.175	NA	NA
Treatment during compensated cirrhosis	300,159	−55,314	10.125	0.950	Compensated cirrhosis dominates
Treatment during decompensated cirrhosis	349,962	−5511	9.219	0.044	Decompensated cirrhosis dominates
Treatment during posttransplant recurrence	352,250	−3223	9.236	0.061	Posttransplant recurrence dominates

NOTE: Each treatment strategy is compared to the no-treatment strategy. Costs are expressed in US dollars.

With respect to the other strategies, treatment was cost-saving when it was administered during compensated cirrhosis. Compared to controls, treatment during compensated cirrhosis increased QALYs by 0.950 and saved $55,314. To a lesser extent, treatment during decompensated cirrhosis and during posttransplant recurrence was also cost-saving in comparison with untreated controls. Treatment during decompensated cirrhosis increased QALYs by 0.044 and decreased costs by $5511. Treatment during advanced posttransplant recurrence increased QALYs by 0.061 and decreased costs by $3223 (Table 4).

In cost-effectiveness analysis, treatment during compensated cirrhosis dominated all other strategies as it yielded the greatest survival benefit and the lowest cost. Treatment during decompensated cirrhosis and treatment during advanced posttransplant recurrence were both more cost-effective than no treatment and showed dominance over the no-treatment strategy in cost-effectiveness analysis (Table 4). Posttransplant treatment was less cost-effective than treatment during decompensation; an ICER greater than $50,000/QALY was yielded in a direct comparison between the 2 strategies.

The cost-effectiveness results were robust to all variables tested in sensitivity analysis, with the exception of the annual rate of graft failure in patients with and without SVR (Table 5). The literature-based annual rate of graft failure in patients with SVR was 6.0% (Table 2). Decreasing the rate of graft failure in patients with SVR to less than 3.6% resulted in treatment during decompensated cirrhosis replacing treatment during compensated cirrhosis as the most cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of less than $50,000/QALY (Fig. 2A). The literature-based annual rate of graft failure in patients without SVR was 8.0% (Table 2). Decreasing the rate of graft failure in patients without SVR to less than 4.1% resulted in the no-treatment strategy replacing treatment during compensated cirrhosis as the most cost-effective strategy (Fig. 2B). The analysis of all other transition probabilities, clinical assumptions, and costs did not alter the results of our cost-effectiveness analysis (Table 5), and for the majority of variables, the compensated strategy dominated all other strategies over the entire range of the sensitivity analysis.

Table 5. Summary of the One-Way Sensitivity Analysis

Variable	Most Cost-Effective Strategy
Baseline assumptions
SVR
Treatment during compensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
Treatment during decompensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
Treatment post-transplant	Compensated strategy
Use of filgrastim
Treatment during compensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
Treatment during decompensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
Treatment post-transplant	Compensated strategy
Use of epoetin
Treatment during compensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
Treatment during decompensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
Treatment post-transplant	Compensated strategy
Liver transplantation
Transplantation rate, decompensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
Transplantation rate, HCC	Compensated strategy
Transition probabilities
Compensated cirrhosis with SVR to decompensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
Compensated cirrhosis with SVR to HCC	Compensated strategy
Compensated cirrhosis without SVR to decompensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
Compensated cirrhosis without SVR to HCC	Compensated strategy
Decompensated cirrhosis to HCC	Compensated strategy
Post-transplant with SVR to graft failure	The decompensated strategy was most cost-effective when the probability was less than 0.036. Above this probability, the compensated strategy was most cost-effective.
Post-transplant without SVR to advanced histological recurrence (METAVIR ≥ 2)	Compensated strategy
Post-transplant without SVR to graft failure	No treatment was most cost- effective when the probability was less than 0.041. Above this probability, the compensated strategy was most cost-effective.
Post-transplant with advanced histological recurrence to graft failure	Compensated strategy
Post-transplant without advanced histological recurrence to graft failure	Compensated strategy
Mortality rate, compensated cirrhosis with SVR	Compensated strategy
Mortality rate, compensated cirrhosis without SVR	Compensated strategy
Mortality rate, decompensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
Costs
Antiviral treatment, compensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
Antiviral treatment, decompensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
Antiviral treatment, post-transplant	Compensated strategy
Filgrastim, 11 months	Compensated strategy
Epoetin, 11 months	Compensated strategy
Liver biopsy	Compensated strategy
Radiology-guided liver biopsy	Compensated strategy
Compensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
Decompensated cirrhosis	Compensated strategy
HCC	Compensated strategy
Liver transplantation (first year)	Compensated strategy
Liver transplantation (subsequent years)	Compensated strategy
Death	Compensated strategy

NOTE: Variables ranged from 50% to 200% of the baseline value. A strategy was determined to be the most cost-effective strategy if it yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year saved in comparison with the baseline preferred strategy.

DISCUSSION

We found treatment during compensated cirrhosis to be the most cost-effective strategy for antiviral administration in the setting of advanced HCV-related liver disease. This strategy yielded the greatest survival benefit with the lowest associated cost by reversing cirrhosis and reducing the incidence of decompensation, HCC, transplantation, and death. Treatment after the development of decompensation or in the posttransplant setting was also found to be cost-effective, but these patients derived less survival benefit at greater cost in comparison with patients treated during compensated cirrhosis. The sensitivity analysis revealed the cost-effectiveness assessment to be robust, with only variations of graft failure rates influencing the model. Given the results of this study, we strongly recommend expeditious administration of antiviral therapy to patients with compensated cirrhosis before their disease advances. Antiviral treatment for patients with compensated cirrhosis due to genotype 1 HCV is clearly cost-saving, and if these patients are allowed to develop more advanced disease, their prognosis worsens considerably, and the benefits that they can potentially derive from antiviral therapy diminish considerably.

In this study, antiviral therapy for patients with decompensated HCV cirrhosis was less cost-effective than treatment of patients with compensated cirrhosis. The most obvious limitation to the efficacy of treatment in this population is the low SVR rate (14.3%), which is lower than that for patients with compensated cirrhosis (30.0%) and for patients with posttransplant recurrence (25.5%). The high rates of early discontinuation of treatment due to the absence of EVR and severe side effects clearly diminish the chance of obtaining SVR in these patients (Table 1). Indeed, a recent study recommended against antiviral treatment for patients with advanced cirrhosis (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score >18) because of a lack of SVR and a high risk of developing bacterial infections during treatment.49 Despite the aforementioned limitations, however, treatment during decompensated cirrhosis was found to be cost-effective in comparison with no treatment. Two studies to date have reported acceptable levels of safety and efficacy of antiviral treatment with PEG/RBV in patients exclusively with decompensated HCV cirrhosis.25, 26 It should be noted, however, that these studies included few patients, and some had non–genotype 1 disease.

Antiviral treatment for patients with advanced posttransplant recurrent HCV was found in this study to be less cost-effective than treatment during compensated cirrhosis, although it was more cost-effective than no treatment. Similar to the treatment of patients with decompensated cirrhosis, the treatment of these patients is limited by poor efficacy and high rates of early discontinuation of treatment. In addition, posttransplant therapy with PEG/RBV can heighten the risk of rejection episodes, and in this model, these patients underwent yearly protocol biopsy, which exposed them to the accompanying costs and complications of this procedure.

Patients with decompensated cirrhosis and those with posttransplant recurrent disease present a management dilemma. The finding in this study that treatment strategies involving these patient populations were cost-effective versus no treatment suggests that providing antiviral therapy for these patients may be beneficial. Comparing the 2 strategies showed that the posttransplant treatment strategy was associated with higher total costs ($2288 more per patient) but also yielded a slight improvement in QALYs (0.017) in comparison with the decompensated treatment strategy (Table 4). In a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of the 2 strategies, the posttransplant strategy was less cost-effective than the decompensated strategy and yielded an ICER of $134,588/QALY. Indeed, the sensitivity analysis demonstrated that if the rate of graft failure in patients with SVR can be reduced by more than 42%, treatment during decompensation becomes more cost-effective than all other strategies, including the treatment during compensated cirrhosis strategy. At a minimum, our study has demonstrated that further randomized controlled trials are justified to better understand the safety and efficacy of treatment during decompensation and post-transplant and are indeed necessary before universal recommendations regarding these strategies can be made.

This is the first study to assess the cost effectiveness of antiviral treatment for patients in the general population with compensated cirrhosis and with decompensated cirrhosis. The only similar study assessing the cost effectiveness of antiviral treatment for patients with compensated cirrhosis focused only on prison inmates. Tan et al.29 found the treatment of incarcerated male patients with compensated cirrhosis to be cost-saving and to improve the quality of life in patients that were 40 to 70 years old. In that study, in accordance with our findings, treatment dominated no treatment in patients with genotype 1 HCV compensated cirrhosis.

One study28 has demonstrated that interferon-based antiviral treatment was cost-effective and efficacious in patients with posttransplant HCV recurrence. In that study, the ICER for posttransplant treatment was found to be $29,100/QALY. That study, however, differed from the current study in a number of ways. It did not incorporate quality-of-life data, it did not focus exclusively on the treatment of patients with genotype 1 disease, and it was published at a time when studies of the long-term natural history of posttransplant HCV were more limited than they are today. Also, the histological definition of graft fibrosis in the patients treated with posttransplant recurrence was not specified; therefore, these patients may not be able to be compared directly to the patients in this study.

It is generally agreed that antiviral treatment in patients with chronic HCV prior to cirrhosis is more efficacious and better tolerated than treatment administered to patients with advanced liver disease. A number of studies have confirmed the cost effectiveness of PEG/RBV combination therapy in patients with genotype 1 chronic HCV without cirrhosis. In 2003, Salomon et al.83 demonstrated an ICER of $26,000-64,000/QALY for the treatment of 40-year-old patients with chronic HCV in the United States. In 2004, Shepherd et al.85 found an ICER of $15,378/QALY for the treatment of patients with chronic HCV in the United Kingdom. In 2007, Gerkens et al.86 published an ICER of $31,300/QALY for the treatment of 45-year-old patients with mild HCV in Belgium. In 2008, Tan et al.29 found treatment to dominate no treatment in US prison inmates that were 50 to 59 years old, whether they had no fibrosis, portal fibrosis, or bridging fibrosis. Although the current study did not evaluate the treatment of patients without cirrhosis, in comparison with the aforementioned studies, our results could suggest that treatment during compensated cirrhosis compares favorably to treatment prior to cirrhosis from a cost-effectiveness perspective. Comparisons among these cost-effectiveness studies, however, are significantly limited by differences in the methodologies employed, target populations used, and availability of natural history data.

Given their potential benefit and frequent use in clinical practice, growth factors were implemented in this study. The most common side effects related to antiviral treatment, especially in patients with advanced liver disease, are cytopenias. The use of growth factors may decrease the rate of premature discontinuation of therapy due to cytopenias. The benefit of growth factor use has not been firmly established, however, and indications for growth factor initiation are variable in the literature. In this study, epoetin was used for 205, 81, and 46 patients in the compensated, decompensated, and posttransplant treatment strategy groups, respectively. Filgrastim was used for 260, 66, and 48 patients in the compensated, decompensated, and posttransplant strategy groups, respectively. Growth factors were associated with substantial increases in costs, and because their benefit is unproven, these increased costs may have resulted in an underestimation of the potential benefit of treatment, particularly in the compensated treatment group, in which the highest number of patients received these therapies. Regardless, our results remained consistent even when broad ranges were used for growth factor usage and costs in sensitivity analysis. More studies on the cost effectiveness of and indications for the administration of growth factors in the setting of antiviral treatment for HCV are needed.

Similar to the use of growth factors, CT-guided biopsy for diagnosing HCC has somewhat uncertain clinical benefit and increases costs. In this study, this intervention was used in 217 patients in the compensated treatment cohort and in 281 patients in each of the other cohorts. The costs associated with this intervention could have led to an underestimation of the cost effectiveness of treatment, particularly in the decompensated treatment, posttransplant treatment, and control strategies. The costs of CT-guided biopsy as well as rates of HCC were tested in sensitivity analysis, however, and were not found to alter the results of our cost-effectiveness analysis.

In conclusion, the treatment of patients with compensated cirrhosis is the most cost-effective and efficacious antiviral strategy in patients with advanced liver disease due to genotype 1 HCV. Antiviral treatment during compensated cirrhosis results in decreased costs and improved survival in comparison with the treatment of patients with decompensated disease or with advanced fibrosis due to recurrent HCV post-transplant. Survival benefit is achieved through regression of cirrhosis and a reduction in the incidence of decompensation, HCC, liver transplantation, and death. The optimal antiviral treatment strategy for decompensated patients and posttransplant patients with advanced recurrent disease has yet to be elucidated, although the current study suggests that treatment during decompensated cirrhosis and, to a lesser extent, during advanced posttransplant recurrence is more cost-effective than no antiviral treatment. Further studies of antiviral treatment in these populations are needed.

REFERENCES

1 Roberts MS, Angus DC, Bryce CL, Valenta Z, Weissfeld L. Survival after liver transplantation in the United States: a disease-specific analysis of the UNOS database. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: 886-897.
10.1002/lt.20137
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 Gringeri E, Vitale A, Brolese A, Zanus G, Boccagni P, Neri D, et al. Hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis as a significant mortality factor in intention-to-treat analysis in liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 2007; 39: 1901-1903.
10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.05.025
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Busuttil RW, Farmer DG, Yersiz H, Hiatt JR, McDiarmid SV, Goldstein LI, et al. Analysis of long-term outcomes of 3200 liver transplantations over two decades. Ann Surg 2005; 241: 905-916.
10.1097/01.sla.0000164077.77912.98
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Forman LM, Lewis JD, Berlin JA, Feldman HI, Lucey MR. The association between hepatitis C infection and survival after orthotopic liver transplantation. Gastroenterology 2002; 122: 889-896.
10.1053/gast.2002.32418
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Sanchez-Fueyo A, Restrepo JC, Quinto L, Bruguera M, Grande L, Sanchez-Tapias JM, et al. Impact of the recurrence of hepatitis C virus infection after liver transplantation on the long-term viability of the graft. Transplantation 2002; 73: 56-63.
10.1097/00007890-200201150-00010
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Prieto M, Berenguer M, Rayon JM, Cordoba J, Arguello L, Carrasco D, et al. High incidence of allograft cirrhosis in hepatitis C virus genotype 1b infection following transplantation: relationship with rejection episodes. Hepatology 1999; 29: 250-256.
10.1002/hep.510290122
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Wright TL, Donegan E, Hsu HH, Ferrell L, Lake JR, Kim M, et al. Recurrent and acquired hepatitis C viral infection in liver transplant recipients. Gastroenterology 1992; 103: 317-322.
10.1016/0016-5085(92)91129-R
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Neumann UP, Berg T, Bahra M, Seehofer D, Langrehr JM, Neuhaus R, et al. Fibrosis progression after liver transplantation in patients with recurrent hepatitis C. J Hepatol 2004; 41: 830-836.
10.1016/j.jhep.2004.06.029
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Tine F, Attanasio M, Russo F, Pagliaro L. A decade of trials of interferon-alpha for chronic hepatitis C: a meta-regression analysis. Contemp Clin Trials 2005; 26: 179-210.
10.1016/j.cct.2004.12.009
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Camma C, Di Bona D, Schepis F, Heathcote EJ, Zeuzem S, Pockros PJ, et al. Effect of peginterferon alfa-2a on liver histology in chronic hepatitis C: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Hepatology 2004; 39: 333-342.
10.1002/hep.20073
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Poynard T, McHutchison J, Manns M, Trepo C, Lindsay K, Goodman Z, et al. Impact of pegylated interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin on liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 2002; 122: 1303-1313.
10.1053/gast.2002.33023
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Everson GT, Balart L, Lee SS, Reindollar RW, Shiffman ML, Minuk GY, et al. Histological benefits of virological response to peginterferon alfa-2a monotherapy in patients with hepatitis C and advanced fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008; 27: 542-551.
10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03620.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Mallet V, Gilgenkrantz H, Serpaggi J, Verkarre V, Vallet-Pichard A, Fountaine H, Pol S. Brief communication: the relationship of regression of cirrhosis to outcome in chronic hepatitis C. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 399-403.
10.7326/0003-4819-149-6-200809160-00006
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Abergal A, Darcha C, Chevallier M, Ughetto S, Henquell C, Pol S, et al. Histological response in patients treated by interferon plus ribavirin for hepatitis C virus-related severe fibrosis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 16: 1219-1227.
10.1097/00042737-200411000-00022
Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Carrion JA, Navasa M, Garcia-Retortillo M, Garcia-Pagan JC, Crespo G, Bruguera M, et al. Efficacy of antiviral therapy on hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation: a randomized controlled study. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 1746-1756.
10.1053/j.gastro.2007.03.041
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Bahra M, Neumann UP, Jacob D, Langrehr JM, Berg T, Neuhaus R, Neuhaus P. Fibrosis progression on hepatitis C positive liver recipients after sustained virologic response to antiviral combination therapy (interferon-based therapy). Transplantation 2007; 15: 351-353.
10.1097/01.tp.0000250575.92788.aa
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Bruno S, Stroffolini T, Colombo M, Bollani S, Benvegnu L, Mazzella G, et al. Sustained virological response to interferon-alfa is associated with improved outcome in HCV-related cirrhosis: a retrospective study. Hepatology 2007; 45: 579-587.
10.1002/hep.21492
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Veldt BJ, Heathcote EJ, Wedemeyer H, Reichen J, Hofmann WP, Zeuzem S, et al. Sustained virologic response and clinical outcomes in patients with chronic hepatitis C and advanced fibrosis. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147: 677-684.
10.7326/0003-4819-147-10-200711200-00003
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Di Marco V, Almasio PL, Ferraro D, Calvaruso V, Alaimo G, Peralta S, et al. Peginterferon alone or combined with ribavirin in HCV cirrhosis with portal hypertension: a randomized controlled trial. J Hepatol 2007; 47: 484-491.
10.1016/j.jhep.2007.04.020
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Camma C, Giunta M, Andreone P, Craxi A. Interferon and prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma in viral cirrhosis: an evidence-based approach. J Hepatol 2001; 34: 593-602.
10.1016/S0168-8278(01)00005-8
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Berenguer M. Systematic review of the treatment of established recurrent hepatitis C with pegylated interferon in combination with ribavirin. J Hepatol 2008; 49: 274-287.
10.1016/j.jhep.2008.05.002
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Piccioto FP, Tritto G, Lanza AG, Addario L, De Luca M, Di Costanzo GG, et al. Sustained virological response to antiviral therapy reduces mortality in HCV reinfection after liver transplantation. J Hepatol 2007; 46: 459-465.
10.1016/j.jhep.2006.10.017
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Ghany MG, Strader DB, Thomas DL, Seeff LB. AASLD practice guidelines. Diagnosis, management, and treatment of hepatitis C: an update. Hepatology 2009; 49: 1335-1373.
10.1002/hep.22759
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Everson GT, Kulig CC. Antiviral therapy for hepatitis C in the setting of liver transplantation. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2006; 9: 520-529.
10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.02126.x
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
25 Tekin F, Gunsar F, Karasu Z, Akarca U, Ersoz G. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pegylated-interferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin in HCV-related decompensated cirrhotics. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008; 27: 1081-1085.
10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03680.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Iacobellis A, Siciliano M, Perri F, Annicchiarico BE, Leandro G, Caruso N, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin in patients with hepatitis C virus and decompensated cirrhosis: a controlled study. J Hepatol 2007; 46: 206-212.
10.1016/j.jhep.2006.08.020
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Abergal A, Hezode C, Leroy V, Barange K, Bronowicki JP, Tran A, et al. Peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin for treatment of chronic hepatitis C with severe fibrosis: a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing two doses of peginterferon alpha-2b. J Viral Hepat 2006; 13: 811-820.
10.1111/j.1365-2893.2006.00768.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 Saab S, Ly D, Han SB, Lin RK, Rojter SE, Ghobrial RM, Busuttil RW. Is it cost-effective to treat recurrent hepatitis C infection in orthotopic liver transplantation patients? Liver Transpl 2002; 8: 449-457.
10.1053/jlts.2002.32717
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29 Tan JA, Joseph TA, Saab S. Treating hepatitis C in the prison population is cost-saving. Hepatology 2008; 48: 1387-1395.
10.1002/hep.22509
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30 Sarasin FP, Majno PE, Llovet JM, Bruix J, Mentha G, Hadengue A. Living donor liver transplantation for early hepatocellular carcinoma: a life-expectancy and cost-effectiveness perspective. Hepatology 2001; 33: 1073-1079.
10.1053/jhep.2001.23311
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 Beck JR, Kassirer JP, Pauker SG. A convenient approximation of life expectancy (the “DEALE”). I. Validation of the method. Am J Med 1982; 73: 883-888.
10.1016/0002-9343(82)90786-0
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32United Network for Organ Sharing. Transplants. http://www.unos.org. Accessed March 2010.
Google Scholar
33 Fattovich G, Giustina G, Degos F, Tremolada F, Diodati G, Almasio P, et al. Morbidity and mortality in compensated cirrhosis type C: a retrospective follow-up study of 384 patients. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 463-472.
10.1053/gast.1997.v112.pm9024300
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
34 Berenguer J, Alvarez-Pellicer J, Martin PM, Lopez-Aldequer J, Von-Wichmann MA, Quereda C, et al. Sustained virological response to interferon plus ribavirin reduces liver-related complications and mortality in patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus. Hepatology 2009; 50: 407-413.
10.1002/hep.23020
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
35 Shiratori Y, Ito Y, Yokosuka O, Imazeki F, Nakata R, Tanaka N, et al. Antiviral therapy for cirrhotic hepatitis C: association with reduced hepatocellular carcinoma development and improved survival. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 105-114.
10.7326/0003-4819-142-2-200501180-00009
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
36 Yoshida H, Shiratori Y, Moriyama M, Arakawa Y, Ide T, Sata M, et al. Interferon therapy reduces the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma: national surveillance program of cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis C in Japan. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131: 174-181.
10.7326/0003-4819-131-3-199908030-00003
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
37 Walter T, Dumortier J, Guillaud O, Hervieu V, Scoazec JY, Boillot O. Factors influencing the progression of fibrosis in patients with recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation under antiviral therapy: a retrospective analysis of 939 liver biopsies in a single center. Liver Transpl 2007; 13: 294-301.
10.1002/lt.21000
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
38 Iacob S, Cicinnati V, Hilgard P, Iacob RA, Gheorghe LS, Popescu I, et al. Predictors of graft and patient survival in hepatitis C virus (HCV) recipients: model to predict HCV cirrhosis after liver transplantation. Transplantation 2007; 84: 56-63.
10.1097/01.tp.0000267916.36343.ca
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
39 Firpi RJ, Abdelmalek MF, Soldevila-Pico C, Cabrera R, Shuster JJ, Theriaque D, et al. One-year protocol liver biopsy can stratify fibrosis progression in liver transplant recipients with recurrent hepatitis C infection. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: 1240-1247.
10.1002/lt.20238
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
40 Bruix J, Sherman M. AASLD practice guideline: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2005; 42: 1208-1236.
10.1002/hep.20933
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
41 Saab S, Ly D, Nieto J, Kanwal F, Lu D, Raman S, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma screening in patients waiting for liver transplantation: a decision analytic model. Liver Transpl 2003; 9: 672-681.
10.1053/jlts.2003.50120
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
42 Fattovich G, Stroffolini T, Zagni I, Donato F. Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: incidence and risk factors. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: S35-S50.
10.1053/j.gastro.2004.09.014
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
43 Shiffman ML, Di Bisceglie AM, Lindsay KL, Morishima C, Wright EC, Everson GT, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C who have failed prior treatment. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: 1015-1023.
10.1053/j.gastro.2004.01.014
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
44 Rodriguez-Luna H, Khatib A, Sharma P, De Petris G, Williams JW, Ortiz J, et al. Treatment of recurrent hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation with combination of pegylated interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin: an open-label series. Transplantation 2004; 77: 190-194.
10.1097/01.TP.0000100481.14514.BB
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
45 Ross AS, Bhan AK, Pascual M, Thiim M, Benedict Cosimi A, Chung RT. Pegylated interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin in the treatment of post-liver transplant recurrent hepatitis C. Clin Transplant 2004; 18: 166-173.
10.1046/j.1399-0012.2003.00145.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
46 Biselli M, Andreone P, Gramenzi A, Lorenzini S, Loggi E, Bonvicini F, et al. Pegylated interferon plus ribavirin for recurrent hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation in naïve and non-responder patients on a stable immunosuppressive regimen. Dig Liver Dis 2006; 38: 27-32.
10.1016/j.dld.2005.08.009
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
47 Neumann U, Puhl G, Bahra M, Berg T, Langrehr JM, Neuhaus R, Neuhaus P. Treatment of patients with recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation with peginterferon alfa-2B plus ribavirin. Transplantation 2006; 82: 43-47.
10.1097/01.tp.0000225827.18034.be
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
48 Neff GW, Montalbano M, O'Brien CB, Nishida S, Safdar K, Bejarano PA, et al. Treatment of established recurrent hepatitis C in liver-transplant recipients with pegylated interferon-alfa-2b and ribavirin therapy. Transplantation 2004; 78: 1303-1307.
10.1097/01.TP.0000129811.93072.1C
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
49 Carrion JA, Martinez-Bauer E, Crespo G, Ramirez S, Perez-del-Pulgar S, Garcia-Valdecasa JC, et al. Antiviral therapy increases the risk of bacterial infections in HCV-infected cirrhotic patients awaiting liver transplantation: a retrospective study. J Hepatol 2009; 50: 719-728.
10.1016/j.jhep.2008.11.015
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
50Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Cost database 2009. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/ama/license.asp?file=/HospitalOutpatientPPS/Downloads/CMS_1404_FC_OPPS_Offset_Amounts_by_APC.zip. Accessed March 2010.
Google Scholar
51 Drug Topics Red Book 2009. Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics; 2009.
Google Scholar
52US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Overview of BLS statistics on inflation and prices. http://www.bls.gov/bls/infla tion.htm. Accessed March 2010.
Google Scholar
53 Thein HH, Krahn M, Kaldor JM, Dore GJ. Estimation of utilities for chronic hepatitis C from SF-36 scores. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 643-651.
10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.40976.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
54 Foster GR, Goldin RD, Thomas HC. Chronic hepatitis C virus infection causes a significant reduction in quality of life in the absence of cirrhosis. Hepatology 1998; 27: 209-212.
10.1002/hep.510270132
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
55 Chong CA, Gulamhussein A, Heathcote EJ, Lilly L, Sherman M, Naglie G, Krahn M. Health-state utilities and quality of life in hepatitis C patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 630-638.
10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07332.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
56 Bonkovsky HL, Woolley JM, for the Consensus Interferon Study Group. Reduction of health-related quality of life in chronic hepatitis C and improvement with interferon therapy. Hepatology 1999; 29: 264-270.
10.1002/hep.510290124
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
57 Cordoba J, Flavia M, Jacas C, Sauleda S, Esteban JI, Vargas V, et al. Quality of life and cognitive function in hepatitis C at different stages of liver disease. J Hepatol 2003; 39: 231-238.
10.1016/S0168-8278(03)00189-2
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
58 Hadziyannis SJ, Sette H, Morgan TR, Balan V, Diago M, Marcellin P, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin combination therapy in chronic hepatitis C: a randomized study of treatment duration and ribavirin dose. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140: 346-355.
10.7326/0003-4819-140-5-200403020-00010
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
59 Zimmerman T, Bocher WO, Biesterfeld S, Zimmerman A, Kanzler S, Greif-Higer G, et al. Efficacy of an escalating dose regimen of pegylated interferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin in the early phase of HCV reinfection after liver transplantation. Transpl Int 2007; 20: 583-590.
10.1111/j.1432-2277.2007.00481.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
60 Fernandez I, Meneu JC, Colina F, Garcia I, Munoz R, Castellano G, et al. Clinical and histological efficacy of pegylated interferon and ribavirin therapy of recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2006; 12: 1805-1812.
10.1002/lt.20883
CAS Google Scholar
61 Castells L, Vargas V, Allende H, Bilbao I, Luis Lazaro J, Margarit C, et al. Combined treatment with pegylated interferon (alfa-2b) and ribavirin in the acute phase of hepatitis C virus recurrence after liver transplantation. J Hepatol 2005; 43: 53-59.
10.1016/j.jhep.2005.02.015
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
62 Sharma P, Marrero JA, Fontana RJ, Greenson JK, Conjeevaram H, Su GL, et al. Sustained virologic response to therapy of recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation is related to early virologic response and dose adherence. Liver Transpl 2007; 13: 1100-1108.
10.1002/lt.21121
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
63 Oton E, Barcena R, Moreno-Planas JM, Cuervas-Mons V, Moreno-Zamora A, Barrios C, et al. Hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation: viral and histologic response to full-dose peg-interferon and ribavirin. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 2348-2355.
10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01470.x
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
64 Toniutto P, Fabris C, Fumo E, Apollonio L, Caldato M, Avellini C, et al. Pegylated versus standard interferon-alpha in antiviral regimens for post-transplant recurrent hepatitis C: comparison of tolerability and efficacy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 20: 577-582.
10.1111/j.1440-1746.2005.03795.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
65 Babatin M, Schindel L, Burak KW. Pegylated-interferon alpha 2b and ribavirin for recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation: from a Canadian experience to recommendations for therapy. Can J Gastroenterol 2005; 19: 359-365.
10.1155/2005/745197
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
66 Angelico M, Petrolati A, Lionetti R, Lenci I, Burra P, Donato MF, et al. A randomized study of peg-interferon alfa-2a with or without ribavirin in liver transplant recipients with recurrent hepatitis C. J Hepatol 2007; 46: 1009-1017.
10.1016/j.jhep.2006.12.017
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
67 Crippin JS, McCashland T, Terrault N, Sheiner P, Charlton MR. A pilot study of the tolerability and efficacy of antiviral therapy in hepatitis C virus-infected patients awaiting liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2002; 8: 350-355.
10.1053/jlts.2002.31748
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
68 Forns X, Garcia-Retortillo M, Serrano T, Feliu A, Suarez F, de la Mata M, et al. Antiviral therapy of patients with decompensated cirrhosis to prevent recurrence of hepatitis C after liver transplantation. J Hepatol 2003; 39: 389-396.
10.1016/S0168-8278(03)00310-6
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
69 Everson GT, Trotter J, Forman L, Kugelmas M, Halprin A, Fey B, Ray C. Treatment of advanced hepatitis C with a low accelerating dosage regimen of antiviral therapy. Hepatology 2005; 42: 255-262.
10.1002/hep.20793
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
70 Jain A, Reyes J, Kashyap R, Rohal S, Abu-Elmagd K, Starzi T, Fung J. What have we learned about primary liver transplantation under tacrolimus immunosuppression? Long-term follow-up of the first 1000 patients. Ann Surg 1999; 230: 441-448.
10.1097/00000658-199909000-00016
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
71 Dumortier J, Scoazec JY, Chevallier P, Boillot O. Treatment of recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation: a pilot study of peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin combination. J Hepatol 2004; 40: 669-674.
10.1016/j.jhep.2003.12.015
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
72 Berenguer M, Palau A, Aguilera V, Rayon JM, Juan FS, Prieto M. Clinical benefits of antiviral therapy in patients with recurrent hepatitis C following liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 679-687.
10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.02126.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
73 Mukherjee S, Lyden E. Impact of pegylated interferon alpha-2B and ribavirin on hepatic fibrosis in liver transplant patients with recurrent hepatitis C: an open-label series. Liver Int 2006; 26: 529-535.
10.1111/j.1478-3231.2006.01261.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
74 Mukherjee S, Lyden E. Impact of pegylated interferon alfa-2a and ribavirin on hepatic fibrosis in liver transplant patients with recurrent hepatitis C: an open-label series. Hepatogastroenterology 2006; 53: 561-565.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
75 Wong JB, Bennett WG, Koff RS. Pretreatment evaluation of chronic hepatitis C: risks, benefits, and costs. JAMA 1998; 280: 2088-2093.
10.1001/jama.280.24.2088
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
76 Gramenzi A, Andreone P, Fiorino S, Camma C, Giunta M, Magalotti D, et al. Impact of interferon therapy on the natural history of hepatitis C virus related cirrhosis. Gut 2001; 48: 843-848.
10.1136/gut.48.6.843
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
77 Planas R, Balleste B, Alvarez MA, Rivera M, Montoliu S, Galeras JA, et al. Natural history of decompensated hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis. A study of 200 patients. J Hepatol 2004; 40: 823-830.
10.1016/j.jhep.2004.01.005
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
78 Ghobrial RM, Steadman R, Gornbein J, Lassman C, Holt CD, Chen P, et al. A 10-year experience of liver transplantation for hepatitis C: analysis of factors determining outcome in over 500 patients. Ann Surg 2001; 234: 384-393.
10.1097/00000658-200109000-00012
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
79 Yilmaz N, Shiffman ML, Stravitz RT, Sterling RK, Luketic VA, Sanyal AJ, et al. A prospective evaluation of fibrosis progression in patients with recurrent hepatitis C virus following liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2007; 13: 975-983.
10.1002/lt.21117
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
80 Feray C, Caccamo L, Alexander GJ, Ducot B, Gugenheim J, Casanovas T, et al., for the EUROHEP Group. European collaborative study on factors influencing outcome after liver transplantation for hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 1999; 117: 619-625.
10.1016/S0016-5085(99)70454-3
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
81 Arias E. United States Life Tables, 2007. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2007.
Google Scholar
82 Rufat P, Fourquet F, Conti F, Le Gales C, Houssin D, Coste J. Costs and outcomes of liver transplantation in adults: a prospective, 1-year, follow-up study. Transplantation 1999; 68: 76-83.
10.1097/00007890-199907150-00015
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
83 Salomon J, Weinstein MC, Hammitt JK, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of treatment for chronic hepatitis C infection in an evolving patient population. JAMA 2003; 290: 228-237.
10.1001/jama.290.2.228
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
84 Hoover DR, Crystal S, Kumar R, Sambamoorthi U, Cantor JC. Medical expenditures during the last year of life: findings from the 1992-1996 Medicare current beneficiary survey. Health Serv Res 2002; 37: 1625-1642.
10.1111/1475-6773.01113
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
85 Shepherd J, Brodin H, Cave C, Waugh N, Price A, Gabbay J. Pegylated interferon alpha-2a and -2b in combination with ribavirin in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8: 1-125.
10.3310/hta8390
Web of Science® Google Scholar
86 Gerkens S, Nechelput M, Annemans L, Peraux B, Mouchart M, Beguin C, Horsmans Y. A health economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of PEG IFN alpha-2a and ribavirin in patients with mild chronic hepatitis C. J Viral Hepat 2007; 14: 523-536.
10.1111/j.1365-2893.2006.00831.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
87 Sangiovanni A, Del Ninno E, Fasani P, De Fazio C, Ronchi G, Romeo R, et al. Increased survival of cirrhotic patients with a hepatocellular carcinoma detected during surveillance. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: 1005-1014.
10.1053/j.gastro.2003.12.049
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
88 Velazquez RF, Rodriguez M, Navascues CA, Linares A, Perez R, Sotorrios NG, et al. Prospective analysis of risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with liver cirrhosis. Hepatology 2003; 37: 520-527.
10.1053/jhep.2003.50093
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
89 Bolondi L, Sofia S, Siringo S, Gaiani S, Casali A, Zironi G, et al. Surveillance programme of cirrhotic patients for early diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost effectiveness analysis. Gut 2001; 48: 251-259.
10.1136/gut.48.2.251
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
90 Henrion J, Libon E, De Maeght S, Deltenre P, Schapira M, Ghilain JM, et al. Screening for hepatocarcinoma in a cohort with cirrhosis mainly of alcoholic origin. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2003; 27: 534-539.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume16, Issue6

June 2010

Pages 748-759

Timing of hepatitis C antiviral therapy in patients with advanced liver disease: A decision analysis model^†^‡

Abstract

Abbreviations: