Treatment alternatives for chronic hepatitis B virus infection: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Fasiha Kanwal, Ian M. Gralnek, Paul Martin, Gareth S. Dulai, Mary Farid, Brennan M R Spiegel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

107 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Treatment options for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have disparate risks and benefits. Interferon has clinically significant side effects, and lamivudine is associated with viral resistance. In contrast, adefovir is safe and has lower viral resistance but is more expensive. The most cost-effective approach is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether and under what circumstances the improved efficacy of adefovir offsets its increased cost compared with lamivudine or interferon. Design: Cost-utility analysis stratified by hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status. Data Sources: Systematic review of MEDLINE from 1970 to 2005. Target Population: Patients with chronic HBV infection, elevated aminotransferase levels, and no cirrhosis. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Third-party payer. Interventions: 1) No HBV treatment ("do nothing" strategy), 2) interferon monotherapy, 3) lamivudine monotherapy, 4) adefovir monotherapy, or 5) lamivudine with crossover to adefovir upon resistance ("adefovir salvage" strategy). Outcome Measure: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results of Base-Case Analysis: The "do nothing" strategy was least effective yet least expensive. Compared with the "do nothing" strategy, using interferon cost an incremental $6337 to gain 1 additional QALY. Compared with interferon, the adefovir salvage strategy cost an incremental $8446 per QALY gained. Both the lamivudine and adefovir monotherapy strategies were more expensive yet less effective than the alternative strategies and were therefore dominated. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: In sensitivity analysis, interferon was most cost-effective in health care systems with tight budgetary constraints and a high prevalence of HBeAg-negative patients. Limitations: These results apply only to patients with chronic HBV infection, elevated aminotransferase levels, and no clinical or histologic evidence of cirrhosis. They do not apply to alternative populations. Conclusions: Neither lamivudine nor adefovir monotherapy is cost-effective in chronic HBV infection. However, a hybrid salvage strategy reserving adefovir only for lamivudine-associated viral resistance may be highly cost-effective across most health care settings. Interferon therapy may still be preferred in health care systems with limited resources, especially in those serving populations with a high prevalence of HBeAg-negative HBV.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)821-831
Number of pages11
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume142
Issue number10
StatePublished - May 17 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Chronic Hepatitis B
Virus Diseases
Hepatitis B virus
Lamivudine
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Interferons
Costs and Cost Analysis
Hepatitis B e Antigens
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Therapeutics
Transaminases
Delivery of Health Care
Fibrosis
Health Insurance Reimbursement
adefovir
Health Services Needs and Demand
Information Storage and Retrieval
MEDLINE
Population
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Kanwal, F., Gralnek, I. M., Martin, P., Dulai, G. S., Farid, M., & Spiegel, B. M. R. (2005). Treatment alternatives for chronic hepatitis B virus infection: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142(10), 821-831.

Treatment alternatives for chronic hepatitis B virus infection : A cost-effectiveness analysis. / Kanwal, Fasiha; Gralnek, Ian M.; Martin, Paul; Dulai, Gareth S.; Farid, Mary; Spiegel, Brennan M R.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 142, No. 10, 17.05.2005, p. 821-831.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kanwal, F, Gralnek, IM, Martin, P, Dulai, GS, Farid, M & Spiegel, BMR 2005, 'Treatment alternatives for chronic hepatitis B virus infection: A cost-effectiveness analysis', Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 142, no. 10, pp. 821-831.
Kanwal, Fasiha ; Gralnek, Ian M. ; Martin, Paul ; Dulai, Gareth S. ; Farid, Mary ; Spiegel, Brennan M R. / Treatment alternatives for chronic hepatitis B virus infection : A cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2005 ; Vol. 142, No. 10. pp. 821-831.
@article{17726f0e77e04a73aea9753af6a84165,
title = "Treatment alternatives for chronic hepatitis B virus infection: A cost-effectiveness analysis",
abstract = "Background: Treatment options for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have disparate risks and benefits. Interferon has clinically significant side effects, and lamivudine is associated with viral resistance. In contrast, adefovir is safe and has lower viral resistance but is more expensive. The most cost-effective approach is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether and under what circumstances the improved efficacy of adefovir offsets its increased cost compared with lamivudine or interferon. Design: Cost-utility analysis stratified by hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status. Data Sources: Systematic review of MEDLINE from 1970 to 2005. Target Population: Patients with chronic HBV infection, elevated aminotransferase levels, and no cirrhosis. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Third-party payer. Interventions: 1) No HBV treatment ({"}do nothing{"} strategy), 2) interferon monotherapy, 3) lamivudine monotherapy, 4) adefovir monotherapy, or 5) lamivudine with crossover to adefovir upon resistance ({"}adefovir salvage{"} strategy). Outcome Measure: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results of Base-Case Analysis: The {"}do nothing{"} strategy was least effective yet least expensive. Compared with the {"}do nothing{"} strategy, using interferon cost an incremental $6337 to gain 1 additional QALY. Compared with interferon, the adefovir salvage strategy cost an incremental $8446 per QALY gained. Both the lamivudine and adefovir monotherapy strategies were more expensive yet less effective than the alternative strategies and were therefore dominated. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: In sensitivity analysis, interferon was most cost-effective in health care systems with tight budgetary constraints and a high prevalence of HBeAg-negative patients. Limitations: These results apply only to patients with chronic HBV infection, elevated aminotransferase levels, and no clinical or histologic evidence of cirrhosis. They do not apply to alternative populations. Conclusions: Neither lamivudine nor adefovir monotherapy is cost-effective in chronic HBV infection. However, a hybrid salvage strategy reserving adefovir only for lamivudine-associated viral resistance may be highly cost-effective across most health care settings. Interferon therapy may still be preferred in health care systems with limited resources, especially in those serving populations with a high prevalence of HBeAg-negative HBV.",
author = "Fasiha Kanwal and Gralnek, {Ian M.} and Paul Martin and Dulai, {Gareth S.} and Mary Farid and Spiegel, {Brennan M R}",
year = "2005",
month = "5",
day = "17",
language = "English",
volume = "142",
pages = "821--831",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Treatment alternatives for chronic hepatitis B virus infection

T2 - A cost-effectiveness analysis

AU - Kanwal, Fasiha

AU - Gralnek, Ian M.

AU - Martin, Paul

AU - Dulai, Gareth S.

AU - Farid, Mary

AU - Spiegel, Brennan M R

PY - 2005/5/17

Y1 - 2005/5/17

N2 - Background: Treatment options for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have disparate risks and benefits. Interferon has clinically significant side effects, and lamivudine is associated with viral resistance. In contrast, adefovir is safe and has lower viral resistance but is more expensive. The most cost-effective approach is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether and under what circumstances the improved efficacy of adefovir offsets its increased cost compared with lamivudine or interferon. Design: Cost-utility analysis stratified by hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status. Data Sources: Systematic review of MEDLINE from 1970 to 2005. Target Population: Patients with chronic HBV infection, elevated aminotransferase levels, and no cirrhosis. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Third-party payer. Interventions: 1) No HBV treatment ("do nothing" strategy), 2) interferon monotherapy, 3) lamivudine monotherapy, 4) adefovir monotherapy, or 5) lamivudine with crossover to adefovir upon resistance ("adefovir salvage" strategy). Outcome Measure: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results of Base-Case Analysis: The "do nothing" strategy was least effective yet least expensive. Compared with the "do nothing" strategy, using interferon cost an incremental $6337 to gain 1 additional QALY. Compared with interferon, the adefovir salvage strategy cost an incremental $8446 per QALY gained. Both the lamivudine and adefovir monotherapy strategies were more expensive yet less effective than the alternative strategies and were therefore dominated. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: In sensitivity analysis, interferon was most cost-effective in health care systems with tight budgetary constraints and a high prevalence of HBeAg-negative patients. Limitations: These results apply only to patients with chronic HBV infection, elevated aminotransferase levels, and no clinical or histologic evidence of cirrhosis. They do not apply to alternative populations. Conclusions: Neither lamivudine nor adefovir monotherapy is cost-effective in chronic HBV infection. However, a hybrid salvage strategy reserving adefovir only for lamivudine-associated viral resistance may be highly cost-effective across most health care settings. Interferon therapy may still be preferred in health care systems with limited resources, especially in those serving populations with a high prevalence of HBeAg-negative HBV.

AB - Background: Treatment options for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have disparate risks and benefits. Interferon has clinically significant side effects, and lamivudine is associated with viral resistance. In contrast, adefovir is safe and has lower viral resistance but is more expensive. The most cost-effective approach is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether and under what circumstances the improved efficacy of adefovir offsets its increased cost compared with lamivudine or interferon. Design: Cost-utility analysis stratified by hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status. Data Sources: Systematic review of MEDLINE from 1970 to 2005. Target Population: Patients with chronic HBV infection, elevated aminotransferase levels, and no cirrhosis. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Third-party payer. Interventions: 1) No HBV treatment ("do nothing" strategy), 2) interferon monotherapy, 3) lamivudine monotherapy, 4) adefovir monotherapy, or 5) lamivudine with crossover to adefovir upon resistance ("adefovir salvage" strategy). Outcome Measure: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results of Base-Case Analysis: The "do nothing" strategy was least effective yet least expensive. Compared with the "do nothing" strategy, using interferon cost an incremental $6337 to gain 1 additional QALY. Compared with interferon, the adefovir salvage strategy cost an incremental $8446 per QALY gained. Both the lamivudine and adefovir monotherapy strategies were more expensive yet less effective than the alternative strategies and were therefore dominated. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: In sensitivity analysis, interferon was most cost-effective in health care systems with tight budgetary constraints and a high prevalence of HBeAg-negative patients. Limitations: These results apply only to patients with chronic HBV infection, elevated aminotransferase levels, and no clinical or histologic evidence of cirrhosis. They do not apply to alternative populations. Conclusions: Neither lamivudine nor adefovir monotherapy is cost-effective in chronic HBV infection. However, a hybrid salvage strategy reserving adefovir only for lamivudine-associated viral resistance may be highly cost-effective across most health care settings. Interferon therapy may still be preferred in health care systems with limited resources, especially in those serving populations with a high prevalence of HBeAg-negative HBV.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=18644369134&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=18644369134&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 15897532

AN - SCOPUS:18644369134

VL - 142

SP - 821

EP - 831

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 10

ER -