Estimating the cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir + sofosbuvir versus sofosbuvir + ribavirin for patients with genotype 3 hepatitis C virus

Table 4 Results: Base case cost-effectiveness, PSA and exploratory analyses

Treatment population	Intervention			Comparator			Incremental results		ICER (£/QALY)^a	Probability cost-effective (%)^a	Lowest SVR at which DCV + SOF remains cost-effective (%)^a
Treatment population	Regimen	Total cost (£)	QALYs	Regimen	Total cost (£)	QALYs	Total cost (£)	QALYs	ICER (£/QALY)^a	Probability cost-effective (%)^a	Lowest SVR at which DCV + SOF remains cost-effective (%)^a
Treatment naïve	DCV + SOF	62,127	13.233	SOF + RBV	74,774	13.115	−12,647	0.118	DCV + SOF dominant	100	83.3
Treatment experienced		66,241	12.685	SOF + RBV	79,667	12.466	−13,426	0.219	DCV + SOF dominant	100	67.6
Interferon-ineligible/intolerant		64,436	12.926	SOF + RBV	76,740	12.761	−12,305	0.165	DCV + SOF dominant	100	75.2
Interferon-ineligible/intolerant		64,436	12.926	No treatment	31,960	9.242	32,476	3.683	£8817	100	52.8

DCV daclatasvir, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, QALY quality-adjusted life year, RBV ribavirin, SOF sofosbuvir, SVR sustained virologic response
^aCost-effectiveness threshold: £20,000–£30,000/QALY

ISSN: 1478-7547