Objectives: Recently, the results of two economic evaluations were published both of which seemingly demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based regimens for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 infection in Germany. Both analyses were sponsored by the manufacturer of sofosbuvir and use a different methodology: Whereas one evaluation is based on a conventional cost-utility analysis, the other rests upon the efficiency-frontier method used by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). The purpose of this study is to reanalysis the results of both economic evaluations in combination.
Design: Reanalysis of published decision modelling results.
Setting: Primary care in Germany.
Participants: Patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 infection (treatment-na?ve and -experienced, cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic).
Interventions: Sofosbuvir, other anti-hepatitis C virus drugs, and no treatment.
Primary and secondary outcome measures: Cost per unit of health benefit and cost per quality-adjusted life year.
Results: Reanalysis of the results of both economic evaluations in combination reveals an unclear rationale for choosing the selected cost-effectiveness methods as well as a potential publication bias, favoring the product of the manufacturer. Based on the reanalysis, sofosbuvir is not cost-effective in treatment-experienced non-cirrhotic patients, potentially lacks cost-effectiveness in treatment-experienced cirrhotic patients, and is only partially cost-effective in treatment-na?ve non-cirrhotic patients. Taken together, these results indicate a lack of cost-effectiveness in three quarters of the German patient population.
Conclusions: Two economic evaluations on sofosbuvir suggest, in combination, that sofosbuvir cannot be considered a cost-effective treatment in three quarters of the German patient population.
The author has declared that no competing interests exist.