Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Between the Response-Guided Therapies and Monotherapies of Nucleos(t)ide Analogues for Chronic Hepatitis B Patients in China.

Abstract

Nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) monotherapies are typically used as the primary treatment for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients, including lamivudine (LAM), telbivudine (TBV), adefovir (ADV), entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir (TDF). For high-resistance NAs (LAM, TBV, ADV), they can generate excellent clinical outcomes by using response-guided therapy; however, their pharmacoeconomic profiles remain unclear in China. We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness between response-guided therapies and monotherapies of NAs for Chinese hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive and -negative CHB patients. We constructed a Markov model to simulate CHB progression associated with 12 treatment strategies using effectiveness and cost data from the published literature. We measured the lifetime costs, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity (especially to extend the range of the TDF price) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore the uncertainties of the model. For both HBeAg-positive and -negative patients, no treatment strategy generated the lowest lifetime costs (US$31,185-US$31,338) and QALYs (7.54-7.58). ETV and TDF monotherapies were not dominated by other treatments, whereas, the ICER of ETV monotherapy was the lowest (US$6112/QALY-US$8533/QALY). For each high-resistance NA, compared with its monotherapy, the ICERs of its response-guided therapies were below the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$22,833/QALY. Additionally, TDF monotherapy was the preferred treatment when its price dropped to US$1820/year or lower. Among 12 treatment strategies evaluated, ETV monotherapy is the most cost-effective treatment for treatment-naive CHB patients in China. The response-guided therapies of high-resistance NAs are more cost-effective than their monotherapies.