Table 4.
Alternative scenario results (time horizon 5 years). Costs and effectiveness are given per 100 patients
| Patient’s selection strategy |
ESLD-D | Discounted Cost (€) |
ESLD-D avoided |
Incremental cost (€) |
ICER (€/ESLD-D avoided) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Telaprevir IL-28B-guided triple therapy | |||||
| F3–F4 | 8.43 | €2 092 216 | – | – | |
| F2–F4 | 7.75 | €3 196 311 | 0.53 | €1 104 095 | €1 614 462 |
| F1–F4 | 7.57 | €3 651 681 | 0.86 | €1 559 465 | €1 818 679 |
| Boceprevir RVR-guided therapy | |||||
| F3–F4 | 9.08 | €1 876 160 | – | – | |
| F2–F4 | 8.43 | €2 939 129 | 0.64 | €1 062 969 | €1 648 676 |
| F1–F4 | 8.28 | €3 362 551 | 0.80 | €1 486 391 | €1 866 437 |
F3–F4, Metavir fibrosis stage 3 and 4; F2–F4, Metavir fibrosis stage 2, 3 and 4; F1–F4, Metavir fibrosis stage 1, 2, 3 and 4; ESLD-D, end-stage liver diseases or death; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.