Modeling the Health Economic Burden of Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Turkey: Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted Screening.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In 2016, World Health Organization introduced global goals to eliminate hepatitis C virus by 2030. The aim of this study is to analyze the epidemiologic and economic burden of hepatitis C virus in Turkey and compare current practice (regular care) with a hypothetical active screening and treatment approach (active scenario). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to analyze and compare regular care with a scenario developed by experts including the screening and treatment of all acute and chronic hepatitis C virus infections between 2020 and 2050. General and targeted populations were focused. The model reflected the natural history of the disease, and the inputs were based on a literature review and expert opinions. Costs were provided by previous studies and national regulations. RESULTS: The active scenario resulted in higher spending for all groups compared with regular care in the first year. Cumulative costs were equalized in the 8th, 12th, 13th, and 16th year and followed by cost-savings of 49.7 million, 1.1 billion, 288.6 million, and 883.4 million Turkish liras in 20 years for prisoners, refugees, people who inject drugs (PWID), and all population, respectively. In all groups, the mortality was found to be lower with the active scenario. In total, 62.8% and 50.6% of expected deaths with regular care in 5 and 20 years, respectively, were prevented with the active scenario. CONCLUSIONS: An active screening and treatment approach for hepatitis C virus infection could be cost-effective for PWID, prisoners, and refugees. Almost two-thirds of deaths in regular care could be prevented in 5 years' time with this approach.

Cost of heart failure management in Turkey: results of a Delphi Panel.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze health-related cost of heart failure (HF) and to evaluate health-related source utilization aiming to provide data on the economic burden of HF in actual clinical practice in Turkey. METHODS: The study used the Delphi process of seeking expert consensus of opinion including 11 cardiologists who are experienced in HF. The standardized questionnaire comprised items to reflect the opinion of the expert panelists on the distribution of the HF patients in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics and background disease states. Costs related to out-patient follow-up, in-patient follow-up, medications, and other therapies were also evaluated. RESULTS: 34.1% of the HF patients were in the age range of 60-69 years, and 62.3% were males. Coronary heart disease was the leading cause of HF (59.6%); 63.6% of the HF patients had reduced ejection fraction (rEF) and 42.3% were in New York Heart Association (NYHA)-II class. Approximately 75 % of the patients were followed up by a cardiology unit. The total annual visit number was estimated as 3.41. Approximately 32% of HF patients were hospitalized 1.64 times a year, for an average of 6.77 days each time. The total annual costs of all HF patients and HF-rEF patients were estimated as 1.537 TL and as 2.141 TL, respectively. CONCLUSION: The analysis demonstrating the magnitude of the economic impact of HF management on Turkey's healthcare system may help facilitate health and social policy interventions to improve the prevention and treatment of HF.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of oral anti-viral drugs used for treatment of chronic hepatitis B in Turkey.

BACKGROUND: All international guidelines suggested that Tenofovir and Entecavir are the primary drugs at the first line therapy for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, in Turkey these medications reimbursed at the second line therapy according to the Healthcare Implementation Notification. The aim of this study is to compare the cost effectiveness of oral antiviral treatment strategies in CHB for Turkey using lamuvidine, telbuvidine, entecavir, and tenofovir as medications. METHODS: The analysis was conducted using Markov models. The analysis scenarios based on first line treatment options with Lamuvidine, Telbuvidine, Entecavir, and Tenofovir as the medications. In the analysis, inadequate response or resistance after receiving 12 months of the treatment with Entecavir and Telbivudine were compared to the results found from switching from Entecavir to Tenofovir or from switching from Telbuvidine to Tenofovir. In additional, inadequate response or resistance after receiving 6 months of the treatment for Lamivudine was compared to the results found from switching from Lamivudine to Tenofovir. The study population included men and women, who were 40 years of age. The patients` compliance was estimated 100 % for all of the therapy options. The model duration was constructed to evaluate, treatment strategy duration of 40 years. The cost of medications, examinations/follow-ups and complications were included in the model. Years of Potential Life Lost was used as the health outcome. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis has been conducted. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: While the minimum years of life lost was found as 0.22 with tenofovir treatment in 5 years, treatment cost was calculated as 12,169 TL. These values were detected as 0.56 years and 7727 TL, 0.37 years and 12,770 TL, respectively for lamuvidine and telbuvidine treatments. The maximum years of life lost and treatment cost was with lamuvidine treatment were detected as 1.60 years and 18,813 TL and, secondly 0.89 years and 24,007 TL for lamuvidine-tenofovir treatment during 10 years. The minimum years of life lost and cost are 0.54 year and 35,821 TL for tenofovir treatment during 10 years. The minimum years of life lost and cost were determined as 1.21 years and 52,839 TL for tenofovir treatment strategy during 20 years. During 30 years period, tenofovir treatment was found to have the minimum years of life lost (1.73 years) and minimum cost (84,149 TL). When the results of 40 years period were analyzed, years of life lost and costs are 2.06 years and 119,604 TL, 2.13 years and 162,115 TL, 2.13 years and 161,642 TL, 6.52 years and 147,245 TL, 3.20 years and 132,157 TL, 4.10 years and 151,059 TL and 3.05 years and 138,182 TL for tenofovir, entecavir, entecavir-tenofovir, lamuvidine, lamuvidine-tenofovir, telbivudine and telbivudine-tenofovir. CONCLUSIONS: In the model presented in this study, in cost effectiveness analysis about CHB treatments, Tenofovir was found to be one of the cost effective methods in comparison with other treatment strategies different time intervals. Beyond this achievement Tenofovir has shown to reduce cumulative treatment cost in first line CHB treatment when compared with regard to 40 year cumulative treatment cost.