Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of antiviral regimens for entecavir-resistant hepatitis B: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who had exposed to lamivudine (LAM) and telbivudine (LdT) had high risk of developing entecavir (ETV)-resistance after long-term treatment. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and a network meta-analysis on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness on antiviral regimens in CHB patients with ETV-resistance. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies on nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) treatment [including tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based rescue therapies, adefovir (ADV)-based rescue therapies and double-dose ETV therapy] in CHB patients with ETV-resistance. The network meta-analysis was conducted for 1-year complete virological response (CVR) and biological response (BR) rates using GeMTC and ADDIS. A cost-effective analysis was conducted to select an economic and effective treatment regimen based on the 1-year CVR rate. RESULTS: A total of 6 studies were finally included in this analysis. The antiviral efficacy was estimated. On network meta-analysis, the 1-year CVR rate in ETV-TDF [odds ratio (OR)  = 22.30; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 2.78-241.93], LAM-TDF (OR  = 70.67; 95 % CI: 5.16-1307.45) and TDF (OR  = 16.90; 95 % CI: 2.28-186.30) groups were significantly higher than that in the ETV double-dose group; the 1-year CVR rate in the LAM-TDF group (OR  = 14.82; 95 % CI: 1.03-220.31) was significantly higher than that in the LAM/LdT-ADV group. The 1-year BR rate of ETV-TDF (OR = 28.68; 95 % CI: 1.70-1505.08) and TDF (OR = 21.79; 95 % CI: 1.43-1070.09) therapies were significantly higher than that of ETV double-dose therapy. TDF-based therapies had the highest possibility to achieve the CVR and BR at 1 year, in which LAM-TDF combined therapy was the most effective regimen. The ratio of cost/effectiveness for 1-year treatment was 8 526, 17 649, 20 651 Yuan in the TDF group, TDF-ETV group, and ETV-ADV group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TDF-based combined therapies such as ETV-TDF and LAM-TDF therapies were the first-line treatment if financial condition is allowed.

How patent law reform can improve affordability and accessibility of medicines in South Africa: Four medicine case studies.

South Africa (SA) is in the process of amending its patent laws. Since its 2011 inception, Fix the Patent Laws, a coalition of 40 patient groups, has advocated for reform of SA's patent laws to improve affordability of medicines in the country. Building on two draft policies (2013, 2017) and a consultative framework (2016) for reform of SA's patent laws, Cabinet approved phase 1 of the Intellectual Property Policy of the Republic of South Africa on 23 May 2018. Fix the Patent Laws welcomed the policy, but highlighted concerns regarding the absence of important technical details, as well as the urgent need for government to develop bills, regulations and guidelines to provide technical detail and to codify and implement patent law reform in the country. In this article, we explore how reforms proposed in SA's new intellectual property policy could improve access to medicine through four medicine case studies.

[Cost-Fffectiveness of Two Antiviral Therapies for Chronic Hepatitis B in Peru: Entecavir and Tenofovir]. / Costo-efectividad de dos terapias antivirales para Hepatitis B crónica en el Perú: Entecavir y tenofovir.

OBJETIVES: To compare in terms of cost-effectiveness to entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir (TDF) in the treatment of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in public hospitals in Peru. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We structured a Markov model. We define effectiveness adjusted life years for quality (QALY). We include the direct costs of treatment in soles from the perspective of the Ministry of Health of Peru. We estimate the relationship between cost and effectiveness ratios (ICER). We performed sensitivity analyzes considering a range of willingness to pay (WTP) from one to three times the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, and a tornado analysis regarding Monetary Net Profit (BMN) or ICER. RESULTS: Treatment with TDF is more effective and less expensive than ETV. The ETV had a cost per QALY of PEN 4482, and PEN 1526 TDF. The PTO maintains a progressively larger with increasing WTP BMN. The discount rate was the only variable with a significant effect on model uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Treatment with TDF is more cost-effective than ETV in public hospitals in Peru.

OBJETIVOS: Comparar en términos de costo-efectividad a entecavir (ETV) y tenofovir (TDF) en el tratamiento del virus de la hepatitis B (HBV) en hospitales públicos del Perú. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Estructuramos un modelo de Markov, definimos la efectividad en años de vida ajustados a calidad (AVAC). Incluimos los costos directos del tratamiento en soles desde la perspectiva del Ministerio de Salud del Perú. Calculamos la relación entre costo y efectividad incrementales (ICER). Realizamos análisis de sensibilidad determinístico y probabilístico, considerando un rango de disponibilidad de pago (WTP) desde uno hasta tres veces el producto bruto interno (PBI) per-cápita, y el beneficio monetario neto (BMN) o ICER en el caso del análisis de tornado. RESULTADOS: El tratamiento con TDF es más efectivo y menos costoso que ETV. El ETV tuvo un costo por AVAC de S/ 4482, y de S/ 1526 para TDF. El TDF mantiene un BMN progresivamente mayor conforme aumenta la WTP. La tasa de descuento fue la única variable con efecto significativo en la incertidumbre del modelo. CONCLUSIONES: El tratamiento con TDF es más costo-efectivo que ETV en hospitales públicos del Perú.

Costo-efectividad de dos terapias antivirales para Hepatitis B crónica en el Perú: Entecavir y tenofovir / Cost-Fffectiveness of Two Antiviral Therapies for Chronic Hepatitis B in Peru: Entecavir and Tenofovir

RESUMEN Objetivos Comparar en términos de costo-efectividad a entecavir (ETV) y tenofovir (TDF) en el tratamiento del virus de la hepatitis B (HBV) en hospitales públicos del Perú. Materiales y métodos Estructuramos un modelo de Markov, definimos la efectividad en años de vida ajustados a calidad (AVAC). Incluimos los costos directos del tratamiento en soles desde la perspectiva del Ministerio de Salud del Perú. Calculamos la relación entre costo y efectividad incrementales (ICER). Realizamos análisis de sensibilidad determinístico y probabilístico, considerando un rango de disponibilidad de pago (WTP) desde uno hasta tres veces el producto bruto interno (PBI) per-cápita, y el beneficio monetario neto (BMN) o ICER en el caso del análisis de tornado. Resultados El tratamiento con TDF es más efectivo y menos costoso que ETV. El ETV tuvo un costo por AVAC de S/ 4482, y de S/ 1526 para TDF. El TDF mantiene un BMN progresivamente mayor conforme aumenta la WTP. La tasa de descuento fue la única variable con efecto significativo en la incertidumbre del modelo. Conclusiones El tratamiento con TDF es más costo-efectivo que ETV en hospitales públicos del Perú.

ABSTRACT Objetives To compare in terms of cost-effectiveness to entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir (TDF) in the treatment of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in public hospitals in Peru. Materials and methods We structured a Markov model. We define effectiveness adjusted life years for quality (QALY). We include the direct costs of treatment in soles from the perspective of the Ministry of Health of Peru. We estimate the relationship between cost and effectiveness ratios (ICER). We performed sensitivity analyzes considering a range of willingness to pay (WTP) from one to three times the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, and a tornado analysis regarding Monetary Net Profit (BMN) or ICER. Results Treatment with TDF is more effective and less expensive than ETV. The ETV had a cost per QALY of PEN 4482, and PEN 1526 TDF. The PTO maintains a progressively larger with increasing WTP BMN. The discount rate was the only variable with a significant effect on model uncertainty. Conclusion Treatment with TDF is more cost-effective than ETV in public hospitals in Peru.

Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Impact of Antiviral Strategies of HBeAg-Positive and -Negative Chronic Hepatitis B.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is associated with high burden and healthcare costs. Virologic response achieved with antivirals is associated with progression avoidance. This study aimed to estimate the efficiency and clinical impact of antiviral strategies in CHB patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model estimated lifetime complications and direct costs in both, HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative cohorts. Strategy 1 (71% of treated population) and strategy 2 (100%), both based on pegylated interferon (peg-IFN) followed by oral tenofovir or entecavir, were compared to no treatment. Progression was based on HBV-DNA levels. Rescue therapy with oral antivirals was applied for peg-IFN failure. Disease costs (C, 2014) and utilities were obtained from literature. RESULTS: Compared to natural history, strategy 1 increased QALY (3.98 in HBeAg-positive, 2.16 in -negative cohort). With strategy 2, survival was up to 5.60 (HBeAg-positive) and 3.05 QALY (in HBeAg-negative). The model predicted avoidance of 128 and 86 carcinomas in HBeAg-positive and -negative patients with strategy 1, and up to 181 and 121 in HBeAg-positive and -negative for strategy 2. Total cost increased up to C102,841 (strategy 1) and C105,408 (strategy 2) in HBeAg-positive, and C85,858 and C93,754 in HBeAg-negative. A C1,581/QALY gained ratio was estimated versus the natural history for both strategies. In conclusion, increasing antiviral coverage would be efficient, reducing complications.

Economic Analysis and Budget Impact of Tenofovir and Entecavir in the First-Line Treatment of Hepatitis B Virus in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis B is a common, progressive disease, particularly when viral replication is detected. Oral antivirals can suppress viral replication and prevent or delay the development of cirrhosis and liver-related complications. The treatments of chronic hepatitis B cannot totally cure the disease but can prevent its progression to hepatocellular carcinoma, decreasing the levels of both morbidity and mortality. To date, there are several therapies indicated by the international guidelines as first-line treatments for the management of hepatitis B; two of the most effective are those based on either tenofovir or entecavir. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tenofovir and entecavir in the treatment of naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B. The two treatments are compared with the "no treatment" and to one another. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model; patients entered one of the following health states: chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis (compensated or decompensated), hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation or death. The analysis was carried out from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service by considering a life-time horizon with cycles lasting 1 year and with costs and QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) discounted at a rate of 3.5%. The results of the model were analysed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: ICERs for tenofovir and entecavir emerging from the comparison versus "no treatment" were equal to €10,274.73 and €16,300.44 per QALY gained, respectively, on the life-time horizon. Tenofovir was dominant in the direct comparison with entecavir, indicating more QALYs and a lower consumption of resources. The Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated that in 97% (tenofovir) and in 85% (entecavir) of the scenarios performed, the cost per QALY fell below the threshold of €30,000/QALY. The budget impact analysis showed savings for tenofovir amounting to 33% compared to entecavir in the first year on treatment and to 31% in following years. CONCLUSIONS: Entecavir and tenofovir are recommended for the treatment of patients with chronic Hepatitis B in the Italian Health System. In particular, tenofovir appeared to be the more cost-effective drug for the management of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections. These results could help decision makers and clinicians to address their decision when choosing a first-line treatment for the management of people affected by chronic HBV.

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.

Application of Bayesian Approach to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Antiviral Treatments in Chronic Hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a major problem for public health; timely antiviral treatment can significantly prevent the progression of liver damage from HBV by slowing down or stopping the virus from reproducing. In the study we applied Bayesian approach to cost-effectiveness analysis, using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation methods for the relevant evidence input into the model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of entecavir (ETV) and lamivudine (LVD) therapy for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in Jiangsu, China, thus providing information to the public health system in the CHB therapy. METHODS: Eight-stage Markov model was developed, a hypothetical cohort of 35-year-old HBeAg-positive patients with CHB was entered into the model. Treatment regimens were LVD100mg daily and ETV 0.5 mg daily. The transition parameters were derived either from systematic reviews of the literature or from previous economic studies. The outcome measures were life-years, quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs), and expected costs associated with the treatments and disease progression. For the Bayesian models all the analysis was implemented by using WinBUGS version 1.4. RESULTS: Expected cost, life expectancy, QALYs decreased with age. Cost-effectiveness increased with age. Expected cost of ETV was less than LVD, while life expectancy and QALYs were higher than that of LVD, ETV strategy was more cost-effective. Costs and benefits of the Monte Carlo simulation were very close to the results of exact form among the group, but standard deviation of each group indicated there was a big difference between individual patients. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with lamivudine, entecavir is the more cost-effective option. CHB patients should accept antiviral treatment as soon as possible as the lower age the more cost-effective. Monte Carlo simulation obtained costs and effectiveness distribution, indicate our Markov model is of good robustness.

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 of Lamivudine, Telbivudine, Adefovir Dipivoxil and Entecavir on decompensated hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lamivudine (LMV), telbivudine (LdT), adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) and entecavir (ETV) on decompensated hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 1332 patients with decompensated hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis were randomly assigned into 5 groups with different clinical treatment including LMV treatment, LdT treatment, ADV treatment, LMV+ADV treatment and ETV treatment. And then the liver function, Child-Pugh scores, sero-conversion of HBeAg/HBeAb, polymerase gene mutations, cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-effectiveness and side effects were investigated and further analyzed. RESULTS: LMV, ADV, LdT, LMV+ADV and ETV were all effective on decreasing Child-Pugh scores and conversing negatively hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA and HBeAg, whereas LMV+ADV and ETV more effective than LMV, ADV and LdT. HBV DNA polymerase genotypic mutations were rare in the 5 groups. The less mutation rate was found in the LMV+ADV and ETV group than in the LMV, ADV and LdT group. Compared to the cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ETV was the optimal selection, LMV+ADV was the alternative selection and LMV was the cheapest option. The side effects of the 5 plans were all rare and could be controlled. CONCLUSIONS: LMV, ADV, LdT, LMV+ADV and ETV were all effective on treatment of decompensated hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis whereas ETV and LMV+ADV were recommended.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lamivudine, telbivudine, and entecavir in treatment of chronic hepatitis B with adefovir dipivoxil resistance.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of lamivudine (LMV), telbivudine (LdT), and entecavir (ETV) in treatment of chronic hepatitis B with adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) resistance. Two hundred and fifty-two patients were recruited and screened for resistance to ADV and randomly assigned into three groups: LMV + ADV, LdT + ADV, and ETV + ADV. The ratio of biochemical response, virological response, seroconversion of hepatitis Be antigen (HBeAg)/hepatitis Be antibody (HBeAb), viral breakthrough, and the cost and effectiveness of treatments were analyzed. A comparison of the results of the ratio of biochemical response, virological response and seroconversion of HBeAg/HBeAb, showed no statistical difference between the three groups, with the economic cost of LMV + ADV the lowest, LdT + ADV the middle, and ETV + ADV the highest. The side effects of the three plans are all rare and tolerable. LMV + ADV is the optimal rescue strategy, and LdT + ADV the alternative selection in the economically less developed regions, while ETV + ADV was used in the economically developed regions.

Limited hepatitis B immunoglobulin with potent nucleos(t)ide analogue is a cost-effective prophylaxis against hepatitis B virus after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Prophylaxis against hepatitis B virus (HBV) recurrence after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) includes lifelong hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and oral antiviral agent(s). In the presence of high-genetic-barrier nucleos(t)ide analogues, the need for lifelong HBIG is questioned. We evaluated the safety and cost-effectiveness of a limited HBIG course. METHODS: OLT from 2006 to 2013 were reviewed. Patients with pre-OLT hepatitis B virus surface antigen who received HBV prophylaxis with 2 HBIG doses (anhepatic and first post-operative day; 10,000 units/dose) and potent nucleos(t)ide analogues were included. The primary end point was HBV recurrence (HBV-DNA detection). RESULTS: Thirteen patients (primary transplants) were included, median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was 18, and there was no fulminant failure; HBV-DNA was detected in 4 patients at OLT. After OLT, 10 patients received entecavir and/or tenofovir. Median follow-up was 23 months. One recurrence occurred (7.7%) at month 13 (HBV-DNA: 14 IU/mL); the graft maintained excellent function. This minimal viremic expression is related to hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence with neoplastic replication carrying integrated HBV-DNA; thus, there is no defined HBV viral recurrence. No graft loss or patient death was related to HBV recurrence. The 1-year patient and graft survival rate was 84.6%. Cost-savings in the first year was $178,100 per patient when compared with Food and Drug Administration-approved HBIG dosing. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of potent oral nucleos(t)ide analogues, a limited HBIG course appears to be cost-effective in preventing HBV recurrence.

Cost effectiveness of response-guided therapy with peginterferon in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The high prevalence of chronic hepatitis B in Asian countries produces a substantial economic burden. Peginterferon has immunomodulatory effects and a finite course for treatment of hepatitis B, but also a high cost and side effects. The recent introduction of a 12-week stopping rule (stopping treatment after 12 weeks) has increased its appeal as a first-line treatment for hepatitis B. We aimed to determine the cost effectiveness of the 12-week stopping rule for peginterferon in hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. METHODS: We used Markov modeling, with data from the Hong Kong population, to compare the cost effectiveness of peginterferon therapy with a 12-week stopping rule vs conventional therapy (48 weeks) and with other antiviral agents. RESULTS: For HBeAg-positive patients, stopping peginterferon therapy after 12 weeks had the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), of $9501/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), compared with no treatment, making it the most cost-effective option. Conventional (48-week) peginterferon treatment had a CER of $9664/QALY. For HBeAg-negative patients, entecavir had the lowest CER ($34,310/QALY). Entecavir was more cost effective than either peginterferon strategies (CERs of $37,423/QALY for 12 weeks of peginterferon and $38,474/QALY for 48 weeks of treatment). CONCLUSIONS: The 12-week stopping rule increases the cost effectiveness of peginterferon therapy, and is the most cost-effective treatment for HBeAg-positive patients. The need for long-term antiviral therapy for HBeAg-negative patients makes entecavir the most cost-effective strategy.

Use of entecavir for the treatment of complex forms of hepatitis B.

INTRODUCTION: Although most HBV infections are effectively managed by the available therapies, the treatment of the most complex cases of hepatitis B still represents an unmet medical need. Entecavir is considered a first-line therapeutic option for hepatitis B, due to its demonstrated efficacy in rapidly suppressing the viral load. Its activity is also characterized by a high genetic barrier and an overall favorable safety profile. AIM: This review provides an overview of the most recent evidence related to the use of entecavir in the management of the most complex forms of hepatitis B. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Original articles for inclusion in this review were retrieved from online databases such as PubMed/Medline and EMBASE; their reference list was browsed to found other relevant papers. The identified papers were selected for inclusion in the present manuscript according to their relevance for the topic. The search was last updated on December 2013. RESULTS: Several studies have proven the efficacy and safety of entecavir in the treatment of patients affected by complex forms of hepatitis B, as those with decompensated cirrhosis, exacerbations of HBV infection and fulminant hepatic failure or in transplanted subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, entecavir seems a powerful therapeutic strategy for the treatment of HBV infection, even in patients affected by the most complex forms of hepatitis. The high efficacy of entecavir, associated with its safety profile, its high genetic barrier to resistance and its cost-effectiveness, allowed this molecule to become one of the preferred first-line options of treatment to manage HBV infections. However, further researches and trials are still needed to definitively elucidate its effectiveness in the daily clinical practice.

Systematic review of efficacy and safety of pemetrexed in non-small-cell-lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer accounts for 20 % of cancer deaths in Spain. The most frequent subtype (87 %) is non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Pemetrexed is a recently marketed drug added to NSCLC therapeutic arsenal. It seems to have become one of the most used options for the treatment of this condition over the last 3 years. AIM OF THE REVIEW: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed in NSCLC, in the different therapy lines. Method A systematic search of published literature was conducted using the main databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and the Center for Reviews and Dissemination) and subsequently a search of referenced literature was performed. We included clinical trials, meta-analyses and systematic reviews. The evaluation of the quality of the articles was performed by pairs using specific assessment scales, Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) adapted for CASP Spain. Then we extracted data on efficacy and safety according to the treatment line assessed. RESULTS: We identified 277 references. Finally, nine clinical trials and a meta-analysis complied with inclusion criteria. In first-line induction, treatment with pemetrexed associated with a platinum was similar in terms of efficacy to other alternative chemotherapy regimens, except in patients with non-squamous histology, in whom survival was higher in the experimental group. In maintenance treatment, greater efficacy was seen with pemetrexed in patients with non-squamous histology. In second-line treatment, there were no significant differences in terms of efficacy and safety for pemetrexed treatment versus other chemotherapy options. The most frequent adverse reactions were: hematological, gastrointestinal and neurological. All were significantly less frequent with pemetrexed versus other alternative therapies, except for liver toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the high degree of uncertainty as to its efficacy in certain subgroups of patients, including conflicting data; to its recent incorporation, and therefore lack of safety data in the medium and long term, and the high budgetary impact of its incorporation into health systems, it seems reasonable to optimize its use, identifying those patients who may benefit most.

Lamivudine compared with newer antivirals for prophylaxis of hepatitis B core antibody positive livers: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

There is concern over the development of de novo hepatitis B in patients receiving liver transplants from hepatitis B surface antigen negative, hepatitis B core antibody positive donors. Current practice is to place such patients on indefinite lamivudine prophylaxis; however, there is a small risk of breakthrough infection and newer antivirals for hepatitis B are available. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of lamivudine compared with the newer agents, tenofovir and entecavir, in the prophylaxis setting using a Markov model. Three strategies were examined which consisted of either lamivudine or entecavir monoprophylaxis with tenofovir add-on therapy after breakthrough or tenofovir monoprophylaxis with emtricitabine add-on therapy after breakthrough. In the base case scenario, lamivudine was the most cost-effective option at a threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year and this remained robust despite parameter uncertainty. Tenofovir had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3 540 194.77 while other strategies were superior to entecavir therapy. Until drug costs decrease, lamivudine remains the most cost-effective option for hepatitis B prophylaxis in the liver transplant setting.

Incorporated antivirals for chronic hepatitis B in Brazil: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different drug therapies for chronic hepatitis B in adult patients. METHODS: Using a Markov model, a hypothetical cohort of 40 years for HBeAg-positive or HBeAg-negative patients was constructed. Adefovir, entecavir, tenofovir and lamivudine (with rescue therapy in cases of viral resistance) were compared for treating adult patients with chronic hepatitis B undergoing treatment for the first time, with high levels of alanine aminotransferase, no evidence of cirrhosis and without HIV co-infection. Values for cost and effect were obtained from the literature, and expressed in effect on life years (LY). A discount rate of 5% was applied. Univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess model uncertainties. RESULTS: Initial treatment with entecavir or tenofovir showed better clinical outcomes. The lowest cost-effectiveness ratio was for entecavir in HBeAg-positive patients (R$ 4,010.84/LY) and lamivudine for HBeAg-negative patients (R$ 6,205.08/LY). For HBeAg-negative patients, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of entecavir (R$ 14,101.05/LY) is below the threshold recommended by the World Health Organization. Sensitivity analysis showed that variation in the cost of drugs may make tenofovir a cost-effective alternative for both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: Entecavir is the recommended alternative to start treating patients with chronic hepatitis B in Brazil. However, if there is a reduction in the cost of tenofovir, it can become a cost-effective alternative.

Antivirais incorporados no Brasil para hepatite B cronica: analise de custo-efetividade / Antivirales incorporados en Brasil para hepatitis B cronica: analisis de costo-efectividad / Incorporated antivirals for chronic hepatitis B in Brazil: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJETIVO Avaliar o custo-efetividade de diferentes tratamentos medicamentosos para hepatite B crônica entre pacientes adultos. MÉTODOS Utilizando modelo de Markov, construiu-se coorte hipotética de 40 anos para pacientes HBeAg-positivo ou HBeAg-negativo. Foram comparados os usos de adefovir, entecavir, tenofovir e lamivudina (com terapia de resgate em caso de resistência viral) para tratamento de pacientes adultos com hepatite B crônica, virgens de tratamento, com elevados níveis de alanina aminotransferase, sem evidência de cirrose e sem coinfecção por HIV. Valores para custo e efeito foram obtidos da literatura. A medida do efeito foi expressa em anos de vida ganhos (AVG). Taxa de desconto de 5% foi aplicada. Análise de sensibilidade univariada foi conduzida para avaliar incertezas do modelo. RESULTADOS O tratamento inicial com entecavir ou tenofovir apresentou melhores resultados clínicos. As menores razões custo-efetividade foram de entecavir para pacientes HBeAg-positivo (R$ 4.010,84/AVG) e lamivudina para pacientes HBeAg-negativo (R$ 6.205,08/AVG). Para pacientes HBeAg-negativo, a razão custo-efetividade incremental de entecavir (R$ 14.101,05/AVG) está abaixo do limiar recomendado pela Organização Mundial da Saúde. Análise de sensibilidade mostrou que variação nos custos dos medicamentos pode tornar tenofovir alternativa custo-efetiva tanto para pacientes HBeAg-positivo quanto para HBeAg-negativo. CONCLUSÕES Entecavir é alternativa recomendada para iniciar o tratamento de pacientes com hepatite B crônica no Brasil. Contudo, se houver redução no custo de tenofovir, esta pode se tornar alternativa mais custo-efetiva. .

OBJETIVO Evaluar el costo-efectividad de diferentes tratamientos medicamentosos para hepatitis B crónica entre pacientes adultos. MÉTODOS Utilizando el modelo de Markov, se construyó cohorte hipotética de 40 años para pacientes HBeAg-positivo o HBeAg-negativo. Se compararon los usos de adefovir, entecavir, tenofovir y lamivudina (con terapia de rescate en caso de resistencia viral) para tratamiento de pacientes adultos con hepatitis B crónica, vírgenes de tratamiento, con elevados niveles de alanina aminotransferasa, sin evidencia de cirrosis y sin coinfección por VIH. Valores para costo y efecto fueron obtenidos de la literatura y efecto en años de vida ganados (AVG). Tasa de descuento de 5% fue aplicada. Análisis de sensibilidad univariado fue conducido para evaluar incertidumbres del modelo. RESULTADOS El tratamiento inicial con entecavir o tenofovir presentó mejores resultados clínicos. Los menores cocientes costo-efectividad fueron de entecavir para pacientes HBeAg-positivo (R.010,84/AVG) y lamivudina para pacientes HBeAg-negativo (R.205,08/AVG).Para pacientes HBeAg-negativo, el cociente costo-efectividad incrementado de entecavir (R.101,05/AVG) está por debajo del límite recomendado por la Organización Mundial de la Salud. El análisis de sensibilidad mostró que la variación en los costos de los medicamentos puede tornar tenofovir una alternativa costo-efectiva tanto para pacientes HBeAg-positivo como para los HBeAg-negativo. CONCLUSIONES Entecavir es una alternativa recomendada para iniciar el tratamiento de pacientes con hepatitis B crónica en Brasil. Sin embargo, al haber reducción en el costo de tenofovir, éste puede convertirse en una alternativa más costo-efectiva. .

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different drug therapies for chronic hepatitis B in adult patients. METHODS Using a Markov model, a hypothetical cohort of 40 years for HBeAg-positive or HBeAg-negative patients was constructed. Adefovir, entecavir, tenofovir and lamivudine (with rescue therapy in cases of viral resistance) were compared for treating adult patients with chronic hepatitis B undergoing treatment for the first time, with high levels of alanine aminotransferase, no evidence of cirrhosis and without HIV co-infection. Values for cost and effect were obtained from the literature, and expressed in effect on life years (LY). A discount rate of 5% was applied. Univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess model uncertainties. RESULTS Initial treatment with entecavir or tenofovir showed better clinical outcomes. The lowest cost-effectiveness ratio was for entecavir in HBeAg-positive patients (R$ 4,010.84/LY) and lamivudine for HBeAg-negative patients (R$ 6,205.08/LY). For HBeAg-negative patients, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of entecavir (R$ 14,101.05/LY) is below the threshold recommended by the World Health Organization. Sensitivity analysis showed that variation in the cost of drugs may make tenofovir a cost-effective alternative for both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS Entecavir is the recommended alternative to start treating patients with chronic hepatitis B in Brazil. However, if there is a reduction in the cost of tenofovir, it can become a cost-effective alternative. .