Cost Effectiveness of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B from a Canadian Public Payer Perspective
Abstract
Introduction:Introduction: Previous research has demonstrated that tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF) is the most cost-effective nucleos(t)ide treatment for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in the UK, Spain, Italy and France. However, to our knowledge, no published studies have yet evaluated the cost effectiveness of any treatments for CHB in a Canadian setting, where relative prices and management of CHB differ from those in Europe. Abstract: Aim:Aim: Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of tenofovir DF compared with other nucleos(t)ide therapies licensed for CHB in Canada from the perspective of publicly funded healthcare payers. Abstract: Methods:Methods: A Markov model was used to calculate the costs and benefits of nucleos(t)ide therapy in three groups of patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and -negative CHB: nucleos(t)ide-naive patients without cirrhosis; nucleos(t)ide-naive patients with compensated cirrhosis; and lamivudine-resistant patients. Disease progression was modelled as annual transitions between 18 disease states. Transition probabilities, quality of life and costs were based on published studies. Health benefits were measured in QALYs. The reference year for costs was 2007 and costs and outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. Abstract: Results:Results: First-line tenofovir DF was the most effective nucleos(t)ide strategy for managing CHB, generating 6.85-9.39 QALYs per patient. First-line tenofovir DF was also the most cost-effective strategy in all patient subgroups investigated, costing between $Can43 758 and $Can48 015 per QALY gained compared with lamivudine then tenofovir. First-line tenofovir DF strongly dominated first-line entecavir. Giving tenofovir DF monotherapy immediately after lamivudine resistance developed was less costly and more effective than any other active treatment strategy investigated for lamivudine-resistant CHB, including second-line use of adefovir or adefovir + lamivudine. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated 50% confidence that first-line tenofovir DF is the most cost-effective nucleos(t)ide strategy for treatment-naive patients with CHB, at a $Can50 000 per QALY threshold, and confirmed that first-line tenofovir DF has the highest expected net benefits. Abstract: Conclusions:Conclusions: First-line tenofovir DF appears to be the most cost-effective nucleos(t)ide treatment for both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic CHB patients in Canada, providing that society is willing to pay at least $Can48 015 per QALY gained, although sensitivity analyses highlighted uncertainty around the results.Download Info
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic Info
Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.
Volume (Year): 29 (2011)
Issue (Month): 12 ()
Pages: 1075-1091
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:29:y:2011:i:12:p:1075-1091
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com/
For corrections or technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Dave Dustin).
Related research
Keywords: Adefovir; Antiretrovirals; Cost-utility; Entecavir; Hepatitis-B; Lamivudine; Tenofovir.;Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
- D - Microeconomics
- I - Health, Education, and Welfare
- Z - Other Special Topics
- I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
- I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
- I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
- I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
References
No references listed on IDEASYou can help add them by filling out this form.
Citations
Lists
This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Statistics
Access and download statisticsCorrections
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:29:y:2011:i:12:p:1075-1091For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.