The American journal of managed care
-
Cost-effectiveness analyses compare the value of different treatment strategies, given that one strategy is more effective but also more costly than the other. The results are often used as a pharmacoeconomic basis to support a particular treatment strategy. ⋯ Most published cost-effectiveness analyses regarding antiviral treatment of hepatitis B or hepatitis C reported favorable results. These results may suggest that researchers only attempt cost-effectiveness studies when there is a high likelihood of positive results. Regardless of the explicit cause of the bias, more awareness and scrutiny are needed when utilizing cost-effectiveness studies in decision making.
-
Chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) is common, but underdiagnosed and undertreated worldwide. The most important treatment outcome in HCV is sustained virological response (SVR), due to its impact on reducing the risks of liver-related mortality, hepatocellular carcinoma, and hepatic decompensation. The degree of baseline liver disease, IL28B genotype, and HCV genotype are important determinants of response to treatment, and SVR rates less than 50% can be expected for persons with genotype 1 receiving standard peginterferon with ribavirin. ⋯ There is little evidence supporting improved outcomes with peginterferon and ribavirin retreatment, and escalation of ribavirin dosage leads to an increased risk of adverse events. Introduction of the protease inhibitors, boceprevir and telaprevir, has resulted in SVR rates between 67% and 79% when used as part of a triple therapy regimen, which has become the standard of care for those with genotype 1 HCV. More work is needed to develop strategies to further improve treatment outcomes, and ideally to develop a vaccine to prevent the development of chronic HCV.