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

Abstract

BackgroundAll 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.MethodsThe 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 discussionWhile 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.ConclusionsIn 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 strategie...

Are Published Health Economic Models for Chronic Hepatitis B Appropriately Capturing the Benefits of HBsAg Loss? A Systematic Literature Review

“…In terms of type of economic analyses, the vast majority were cost utility analyses (50/65), with cost-effectiveness analyses making up only 12 of the total included studies [26,31,[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]. One study employed a perceived value assessment (PVA) method that is described by the authors as a novel health economics methodology developed by Monitor Deloitte (formerly Monitor Group) [27,62].…”

A descriptive study of racial inequalities in mortality from hepatocellular cancer before and after licensure of lifesaving drugs for hepatitis C virus in the United States

“…The HCV was identified in 1989, and by 1997, effective drugs had become available. Such drugs are lifesaving but prohibitively expensive for some [5,6]. In the US, after the prior introduction of lifesaving drugs, including active retroviral drug therapy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and surfactant for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), there were increases in racial inequalities in their mortalities [7À9].…”