TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-effectiveness of entecavir versus adefovir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis b in patients with decompensated cirrhosis from a third-party us payer perspective
AU - Tsai, Naoky
AU - Jeffers, Lennox
AU - Cragin, Lael
AU - Sorensen, Sonja
AU - Su, Wenqing
AU - Rosenblatt, Lisa
AU - Tang, Hong
AU - Hebden, Tony
AU - Juday, Timothy
PY - 2012/8/22
Y1 - 2012/8/22
N2 - Background: Decompensated cirrhosis is a serious clinical complication of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) that places a large economic burden on the US health care system. Although entecavir has been shown to improve health outcomes in a cost-effective manner in mixed populations of CHB patients, the cost-effectiveness of entecavir has not been evaluated in CHB patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Methods: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of entecavir versus adefovir, from a US payer perspective, in CHB patients with decompensated cirrhosis, using a health-state transition Markov model with four health states: hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), HCC-free survival, post-liver transplant, and death. The model considered a hypothetical patient population similar to that included in a randomized controlled trial in the target population (ETV-048): predominantly male (74%), Asian (54%), mean age 52 years, hepatic decompensation (Child-Pugh score $ seven), hepatitis B e antigen-positive or -negative, treatment-naïve or lamivudine-experienced, and no liver transplant history. Clinical inputs were based on cumulative safety results for ETV-048 and published literature. Costs were obtained from published literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Results: For 1000 patients over a 3-year time horizon, predicted overall survival and HCC-free survival were longer with entecavir than with adefovir (2.35 versus 2.30 years and 2.11 versus 2.03 years, respectively). Predicted total health care costs were $889 lower with entecavir than with adefovir ($91,878 versus $92,768). For incremental cost/life-year gained and incremental cost/HCC-free-year gained, entecavir was less costly and more effective than adefovir. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be robust to plausible variations in health-state costs and discount rate. Conclusion: This analysis suggests that entecavir improves survival outcomes in a cost-saving manner compared with adefovir in CHB patients with hepatic decompensation.
AB - Background: Decompensated cirrhosis is a serious clinical complication of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) that places a large economic burden on the US health care system. Although entecavir has been shown to improve health outcomes in a cost-effective manner in mixed populations of CHB patients, the cost-effectiveness of entecavir has not been evaluated in CHB patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Methods: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of entecavir versus adefovir, from a US payer perspective, in CHB patients with decompensated cirrhosis, using a health-state transition Markov model with four health states: hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), HCC-free survival, post-liver transplant, and death. The model considered a hypothetical patient population similar to that included in a randomized controlled trial in the target population (ETV-048): predominantly male (74%), Asian (54%), mean age 52 years, hepatic decompensation (Child-Pugh score $ seven), hepatitis B e antigen-positive or -negative, treatment-naïve or lamivudine-experienced, and no liver transplant history. Clinical inputs were based on cumulative safety results for ETV-048 and published literature. Costs were obtained from published literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Results: For 1000 patients over a 3-year time horizon, predicted overall survival and HCC-free survival were longer with entecavir than with adefovir (2.35 versus 2.30 years and 2.11 versus 2.03 years, respectively). Predicted total health care costs were $889 lower with entecavir than with adefovir ($91,878 versus $92,768). For incremental cost/life-year gained and incremental cost/HCC-free-year gained, entecavir was less costly and more effective than adefovir. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be robust to plausible variations in health-state costs and discount rate. Conclusion: This analysis suggests that entecavir improves survival outcomes in a cost-saving manner compared with adefovir in CHB patients with hepatic decompensation.
KW - Antiviral
KW - Health economics
KW - Hepatocellular carcinoma
KW - Incremental net benefit
KW - Survival
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866069004&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866069004&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84866069004
VL - 4
SP - 227
EP - 235
JO - ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
JF - ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
SN - 1178-6981
IS - 1
ER -