Antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis C (G1) in Russia: cost and effectiveness
Genotype 1 HCV treatment in Russia assume as bitherapy (pegylated interferon – PG plus ribavirin – RBV) as three therapy based on HCV protease inhibitor such as telaprevir (TLV), boceprevir (BCV) or simeprevir (SMV) plus PG/RBV. Medical technologies characterize neither clinical effectiveness, safet...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Russian |
| Published: |
Journal Infectology
2015-04-01
|
| Series: | Журнал инфектологии |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journal.niidi.ru/jofin/article/view/381 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850043492024188928 |
|---|---|
| author | A. V. Rudakova D. A. Gusev A. N. Uskov Yu. V. Lobzin |
| author_facet | A. V. Rudakova D. A. Gusev A. N. Uskov Yu. V. Lobzin |
| author_sort | A. V. Rudakova |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Genotype 1 HCV treatment in Russia assume as bitherapy (pegylated interferon – PG plus ribavirin – RBV) as three therapy based on HCV protease inhibitor such as telaprevir (TLV), boceprevir (BCV) or simeprevir (SMV) plus PG/RBV. Medical technologies characterize neither clinical effectiveness, safety profile nor cost-effectiveness so it’s crucial to assess different costs related antiviral regimens. Three therapy costs for naïve patients including TLV, BCV, SMV are higher bitherapy 2,6; 2,5; 3,1 times accordingly. Similar TLV and BCV effectiveness for naïve patients defines TLV or BCV as the preferable 1-st line regimen, depending on regional features of pricing. SMV and TLV efficacy is similar among naïve patients and ralapsers but SMV is affordable for partially responders and non-responders after previous bitherapy. SMV cost is 1,4 times higher vs TLV but SMV has improved tolerability, less drug-drug interactions and shorter course. Insufficient bitherapy effectiveness for G1 HCV (SVR 24 – 39%-55%) is required repeated course of three therapy for half of patient population. The first line regimen based on innovation will improve clinical outcomes for more patients and provide cost saving vs previous bitherapy based on PG/RBV. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-b96328e7aa634b5aa98c3e2cdfc91e46 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2072-6732 |
| language | Russian |
| publishDate | 2015-04-01 |
| publisher | Journal Infectology |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Журнал инфектологии |
| spelling | doaj-art-b96328e7aa634b5aa98c3e2cdfc91e462025-08-20T02:55:13ZrusJournal InfectologyЖурнал инфектологии2072-67322015-04-0171919810.22625/2072-6732-2015-7-1-91-98395Antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis C (G1) in Russia: cost and effectivenessA. V. Rudakova0D. A. Gusev1A. N. Uskov2Yu. V. Lobzin3Science Research Institute of Children’s Infections of FMBA of Russia, Saint-Petersburg, RussiaMilitary Medical Academy named after S.M. Kirov, Saint-Petersburg, RussiaScience Research Institute of Children’s Infections of FMBA of Russia, Saint-Petersburg, RussiaScience Research Institute of Children’s Infections of FMBA of Russia, Saint-Petersburg, RussiaGenotype 1 HCV treatment in Russia assume as bitherapy (pegylated interferon – PG plus ribavirin – RBV) as three therapy based on HCV protease inhibitor such as telaprevir (TLV), boceprevir (BCV) or simeprevir (SMV) plus PG/RBV. Medical technologies characterize neither clinical effectiveness, safety profile nor cost-effectiveness so it’s crucial to assess different costs related antiviral regimens. Three therapy costs for naïve patients including TLV, BCV, SMV are higher bitherapy 2,6; 2,5; 3,1 times accordingly. Similar TLV and BCV effectiveness for naïve patients defines TLV or BCV as the preferable 1-st line regimen, depending on regional features of pricing. SMV and TLV efficacy is similar among naïve patients and ralapsers but SMV is affordable for partially responders and non-responders after previous bitherapy. SMV cost is 1,4 times higher vs TLV but SMV has improved tolerability, less drug-drug interactions and shorter course. Insufficient bitherapy effectiveness for G1 HCV (SVR 24 – 39%-55%) is required repeated course of three therapy for half of patient population. The first line regimen based on innovation will improve clinical outcomes for more patients and provide cost saving vs previous bitherapy based on PG/RBV.https://journal.niidi.ru/jofin/article/view/381hcv-infectiongenotype 1protease inhibitorscost analysis |
| spellingShingle | A. V. Rudakova D. A. Gusev A. N. Uskov Yu. V. Lobzin Antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis C (G1) in Russia: cost and effectiveness Журнал инфектологии hcv-infection genotype 1 protease inhibitors cost analysis |
| title | Antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis C (G1) in Russia: cost and effectiveness |
| title_full | Antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis C (G1) in Russia: cost and effectiveness |
| title_fullStr | Antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis C (G1) in Russia: cost and effectiveness |
| title_full_unstemmed | Antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis C (G1) in Russia: cost and effectiveness |
| title_short | Antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis C (G1) in Russia: cost and effectiveness |
| title_sort | antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis c g1 in russia cost and effectiveness |
| topic | hcv-infection genotype 1 protease inhibitors cost analysis |
| url | https://journal.niidi.ru/jofin/article/view/381 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT avrudakova antiviraltherapyinchronichepatitiscg1inrussiacostandeffectiveness AT dagusev antiviraltherapyinchronichepatitiscg1inrussiacostandeffectiveness AT anuskov antiviraltherapyinchronichepatitiscg1inrussiacostandeffectiveness AT yuvlobzin antiviraltherapyinchronichepatitiscg1inrussiacostandeffectiveness |