Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Between the Response-Guided Therapies and Monotherapies of Nucleos(t)ide Analogues for Chronic Hepatitis B Patients in China.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) monotherapies are typically used as the primary treatment for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients, including lamivudine (LAM), telbivudine (TBV), adefovir (ADV), entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir (TDF). For high-resistance NAs (LAM, TBV, ADV), they can generate excellent clinical outcomes by using response-guided therapy; however, their pharmacoeconomic profiles remain unclear in China. We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness between response-guided therapies and monotherapies of NAs for Chinese hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive and -negative CHB patients. METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to simulate CHB progression associated with 12 treatment strategies using effectiveness and cost data from the published literature. We measured the lifetime costs, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity (especially to extend the range of the TDF price) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore the uncertainties of the model. RESULTS: For both HBeAg-positive and -negative patients, no treatment strategy generated the lowest lifetime costs (US$31,185-US$31,338) and QALYs (7.54-7.58). ETV and TDF monotherapies were not dominated by other treatments, whereas, the ICER of ETV monotherapy was the lowest (US$6112/QALY-US$8533/QALY). For each high-resistance NA, compared with its monotherapy, the ICERs of its response-guided therapies were below the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$22,833/QALY. Additionally, TDF monotherapy was the preferred treatment when its price dropped to US$1820/year or lower. CONCLUSION: Among 12 treatment strategies evaluated, ETV monotherapy is the most cost-effective treatment for treatment-naive CHB patients in China. The response-guided therapies of high-resistance NAs are more cost-effective than their monotherapies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for treatment of chronic hepatitis B in China.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is newly available for treatment of chronic hepatitis B patients in China. To date, no study has been conducted to examine the cost-effectiveness of this treatment. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of TDF versus four oral nucleos(t)ide analogs [lamivudine (LAM), adefovir (ADV), telbivudine (LdT), and entecavir (ETV)] and from a pharmacoeconomic perspective to assess current drug pricing for TDF. METHODS: Based on Chinese healthcare perspectives, a Markov model was applied to simulate the lifetime (40-year time span) costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for five different monotherapy strategies. Two kinds of rescue combination strategies (base-case: LAM + ADV then ETV + ADV; alternative: directly using ETV + ADV) were separately considered for treatment of patients refractory to monotherapy. Model parameters (including disease transition, cost, and utility) were obtained from previous Chinese population studies. Both branded and generic drugs were separately analyzed. Study model uncertainties were assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Two-way sensitivity analysis was used to explore uncertainties between efficacy and price of TDF. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the lowest lifetime cost and the best cost-effectiveness ratio were obtained by ETV, which was considered the reference treatment. LAM, ADV, and LdT treatments had significantly greater costs and lower efficacies. Compared to ETV, TDF was more effective but also more expensive. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of TDF versus ETV were much higher than the willing-to-pay threshold of $20,466 US dollars (USD) per QALY gained (3 × gross domestic product per capita of China, 2014). TDF would be the most cost-effective strategy if the annual cost did not exceed $2260 USD and $1600 USD for branded and generic drugs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For Chinese chronic hepatitis B patients, ETV is still the most cost-effective strategy over TDF and other nucleos(t)ide analogs, with a threshold of $20,466 USD/QALY gained.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of lamivudine plus adefovir combination treatment and nucleos(t)ide analog monotherapies in Chinese chronic hepatitis B patients.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Lamivudine (LAM) plus adefovir (ADV) combination therapy is clinically efficacious for treating chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients in China, but no pharmacoeconomic evaluations of this strategy are available. The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of LAM plus ADV combination treatment compared with five other nucleos(t)ide analog monotherapies (LAM, ADV, telbivudine [TBV], entecavir [ETV], and tenofovir [TDF]). METHODS: To simulate the lifetime (40-year time span) costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for different therapy options, a Markov model that included five initial monotherapies and LAM plus ADV combination as an initial treatment was developed. Two kinds of rescue combination strategies (base-case: LAM + ADV then ETV + ADV; alternative: direct use of ETV + ADV) were considered separately for treating patients refractory to initial therapy. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore model uncertainties. RESULTS: In base-case analysis, ETV had the lowest lifetime cost and served as the reference therapy. Compared to the reference, LAM, ADV, and TBV had higher costs and lower efficacy, and were completely dominated by ETV. LAM plus ADV combination therapy or TDF was more efficacious than ETV, but also more expensive. Although the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of combination therapy or TDF were both higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,466/QALY gained for the reference treatment, in an alternative scenario analysis LAM plus ADV combination therapy would be the preferable treatment option. CONCLUSION: ETV and LAM plus ADV combination therapy are both cost-effective strategies for treating Chinese CHB patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of antiviral therapies for hepatitis B e antigen-positive chronic hepatitis B patients in China.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Several antiviral therapies are now available for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB), but the most cost-effective strategy for Chinese patients is unclear. The aim of this study was to estimate the long-term cost effectiveness of the antiviral treatments (lamivudine, adefovir, telbivudine and entecavir) for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive CHB patients in China. METHODS: A Markov model was used to simulate the life-time (41-year time span) costs and effectiveness associated with antiviral treatments from the perspective of Chinese healthcare. Relative model parameters were derived from Chinese population studies. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 5 %. The highest retail prices for generic and branded drug prices were also considered. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analysis were used to explore model uncertainties. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the least quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained with adefovir as the reference strategy. Lamivudine generated the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with an additional US$35,000 needed to gain one additional QALY for generic drugs and US$36,000 for branded drugs. Entecavir had the lowest ICER of US$7,600 and US$9,100, respectively. The projected 10-year cumulative incidences of compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and mortality for entecavir were lower than the other strategies. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, entecavir was the preferred option at a threshold of US$18,924 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HBeAg-positive CHB in China, entecavir is a cost-effective option compared with other therapies for CHB.