The study compared hepatitis C treatments in Mexico and found that adding thymosin‑alpha‑1 to peginterferon and ribavirin was cheaper and gave better health outcomes than the other options, while doing nothing was the worst. This is mainly about disease‑specific therapy, not general health or performance enhancement.

More than one million individuals in Mexico are infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), and 80% are at risk for developing a chronic infection that could lead to hepatic cirrhosis and other complications that impact quality of life and institutional costs. The objective of the study was to determine the most cost-effective treatment against HCV among the following: peginterferon, peginterferon plus ribavirin, peginterferon plus ribavirin plus thymosin, and no treatment. We carried out cost-effectiveness analysis using the institutional perspective, including a 45-year time frame and a 3% discount rate for costs and effectiveness. We employed a Bayesian-focused decision tree and a Markov model. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed, as well as threshold-oriented and probabilistic analyses, and we obtained acceptability curves and net health benefits. Triple therapy (peginterferon plus ribavirin plus thymosin alpha-1) was dominant with lower cost and higher utility in relationship with peginterferon + ribavirin option, peginterferon alone and no-treatment option. In triple therapy the cost per unit of success was of 1,908 [USD/quality-adjusted life years (QALY)] compared with peginterferon plus ribavirin 2,277/QALY, peginterferon alone 2,929/QALY, and no treatment 4,204/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case. Peginterferon plus ribavirin plus thymosin alpha-1 option was dominant (lowest cost and highest effectiveness). Using no drug was the most expensive and least effective option.