Economic evaluation of treatments for chronic hepatitis B

The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-utility study of adefovir, entecavir, interferon alpha, pegylated interferon alpha, lamivudine and tenofovir for chronic hepatitis B in the context of Brazilian Public Health Care System. A systematic review was carried out for efficacy and safety. Another review was performed to collect utility data and transition probabilities between health states. A Markov model was developed in a time horizon of 40 years with annual cycles for three groups of: HBeAg positive, HBeAg negative, and all patients. These strategies were compared to a fourth group that received no treatment. Discount rates of 5% were applied and sensitivity analyses were performed. Tenofovir offered the best cost-utility ratio for the three evaluated models: U$397, U$385 and U$384 (per QALY, respectively, for HBeAg positive, negative, and all patients). All other strategies were completely dominated because they showed higher costs and lower effectiveness than tenofovir. The sequence of cost-utility in the three models was: tenofovir, entecavir, lamivudine, adefovir, telbivudine, pegylated interferon alpha, and interferon alpha. In the sensitivity analysis, adefovir showed lower cost-utility than telbivudine in some situations. The study has some limitations, primarily related to the creation of scenarios and modeling. In this study, tenofovir presented the best cost-utility ratio. The results obtained in this study will be valuable in decision-making and in the review of the clinical protocol, mainly involving the allocation of available resources for health care.

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. .

Cost-effectiveness of telbivudine versus lamivudine for chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Chronic hepatitis B is a highly prevalent disease worldwide, leading to serious consequences if not properly treated. Six treatment options for chronic hepatitis B are currently provided by the Brazilian public health system. Telbivudine is a nucleoside analogue that is neither included in the Brazilian clinical protocol nor in the therapeutic guidelines for chronic hepatitis B. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of telbivudine for the viewpoint of the Brazilian public system, comparing it to lamivudine. METHODS: A Markov model was used to project lifetime complications and costs of treatment with lamivudine or telbivudine for chronic hepatitis B in both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. To evaluate disease progression, probabilities and utilities of virologic response, virologic resistance, compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, treatment, interruption of treatment, death and seroconversion were collected in systematic reviews. Costs were collected in DATASUS, ABC da Saúde and scientific literature. RESULTS: Higher rate of virologic response and seroconversion was obtained with telbivudine, and also higher values of quality adjusted life years. However lamivudine is associated with lower costs and also lower cost-effectiveness values. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for telbivudine, when compared with lamivudine, were US$ 30,575 and US$ 40,457, respectively for HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. CONCLUSION: In chronic hepatitis B lamivudine is a more cost-effective or even cost-saving strategy when compared with telbivudine.

Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of antiviral therapies in chronic hepatitis B patients in Korea / 대한간학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 1 year and up to 5 years of antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). METHODS: Two ten-health-state Markov models were developed for CHB patients. The proportion of patients remaining alive in each health state, and healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were determined during annual cycles of these Markov models. The total healthcare costs, life years, and QALYs over the 40-year time horizon of the model were calculated. The perspectives of the cost-effectiveness analysis were the Korean healthcare system and the healthcare needs of the CHB patient. RESULTS: Short-course therapy with alpha-interferon or 1-year treatment with pegylated interferon alpha-2a, lamivudine (LMV), or adefovir (ADV) had limited impact on disease progression. In contrast, either LMV-ADV or ADV-LMV as rescue medication administered for 5 years resulted in a more sustained decrease in the rate of disease progression. The cost-effectiveness threshold in Korea was estimated to be approximately 25,000,000 South Korean won. LMV administered for 1 year is cost-effective in comparison with no treatment for both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative CHB patients, but longer duration antiviral therapies administered for up to 5 years in CHB patients were found to be highly cost-effective by international standards. CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral treatment of CHB with LMV or ADV for up to 5 years using the alternative antiviral agent as rescue medication appears to be a cost-effective strategy for both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative CHB patients in Korea. Economic evaluation of antiviral therapies should be studied further and updated, particularly for newer agents.

Cost-effectiveness of entecavir versus lamivudine for the suppression of viral replication in chronic hepatitis B patients in Brazil

Hepatitis B virus infection is an important public-health issue. Chronic patients have a higher risk of death due to complications, which increases health-care expenses in. Cost-effectiveness analysis of entecavir (ETV) versus lamivudine (LVD) for treatment of chronic hepatitis B, in e antigen (AgHBe)-positive and negative patients, based on two phase 3, controlled and randomized studies. A decision analysis model was developed, using the following endpoints: cost per patient with undetectable viral load and cost per quality life year (QALY) gained. Risks for complications (compensated or decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma) were based on the cohort study REVEAL, published in 2006. The REVEAL parameters were applied to the results of the viral load levels obtained from the clinical assay data. The complication costs were based on a study of the disease cost conducted in Brazil, in 2005. The cost data were obtained predominantly from Sistema Único de Saúde [SUS - Brazilian public health system] payment tables and drug price lists. The utility data were obtained from literature and life expectancy information was based on IBGE data. The analysis perspective was that of SUS. A discount rate of 3 percent per year was used. For the horizon of time of 10 years, the ETV had an incremental cost of approximately two million Brazilian Reais (R$) compared to LVD. Reducing the number of complications, ETV treatment reduced costs by around 3 million, reducing final costs by 1 million, for AgHBe-positive patients. ETV also reduced the incremental cost per QALY gained. ETV was found to be the most cost-effective alternative for AgHBe-positive and negative patients.