Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 1/2013

01-01-2013 | Systematic Review

Cost Effectiveness of First-Line Oral Antiviral Therapies for Chronic Hepatitis B

A Systematic Review

Authors: María Buti, Itziar Oyagüez, Virginia Lozano, Miguel A. Casado

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Chronic hepatitis B is a common, progressive disease, particularly when viral replication is detected. Oral antivirals can suppress viral replication and prevent or delay the development of cirrhosis and liver-related complications.

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically review the quality of cost-effectiveness evidence on first-line treatment with entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir difumarate (TDF) for patients with chronic hepatitis B.

Methods

We searched electronic databases and retrieved articles published up to October 2011, in which the cost effectiveness of ETV or TDF was compared with that of other oral antivirals. The quality of the studies identified was assessed with a standard checklist for critical appraisal.

Results

We selected 16 original papers, all published in the last 5 years. There was a conflict of interest in 12 of the 16 studies due to sponsorship by the corresponding pharmaceutical companies. According to the validity assessment, ten studies were classified as high quality. Five studies performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing ETV with TDF; they concluded that TDF dominates ETV. The other 11 studies compared ETV or TDF with other strategies; all concluded that ETV and TDF are both cost-effective interventions.

Conclusions

This systematic review shows that there is valid evidence suggesting that ETV and TDF are cost-effective interventions for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B in many health systems. In countries where both alternatives are available, it appears that TDF dominates ETV. These results could help decision makers and clinicians to understand economic issues regarding the available drugs for first-line treatment of hepatitis B.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Ganem D, Prince AM. Hepatitis B virus infection: natural history and clinical consequences. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1118–29.PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Hoofnagle JH, Doo E, Liang TJ, et al. Management of hepatitis B: summary of a clinical research workshop. Hepatology. 2007;45:1056–75.PubMedCrossRef
4.
European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol. 2009;50:227–42.CrossRef
5.
Chen CJ, Yang HI, Su J, et al. Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma across a biological gradient of serum hepatitis B virus DNA level. JAMA. 2006;295:65–73.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Mommeja-Marin H, Mondou E, Blum MR, et al. Serum HBV DNA as a marker of efficacy during therapy for chronic HBV infection: analysis and review of the literature. Hepatology. 2003;37:1309–19.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Liaw YF, Leung N, Kao JH, et al. Asian-Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B: a 2008 update. Hepatol Int. 2008;3:263–83.CrossRef
8.
Brown R, Cock E, Colin X, et al. Hepatitis B management costs in France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2004;38:S169–74.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Idris BI, Brosa M, Richardus JH, et al. Estimating the future health burden of chronic hepatitis B and the impact of therapy in Spain. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;20:320–6.PubMedCrossRef
10.
11.
García-Altés A, Navas E, Soriano MA. Economic evaluation of public health interventions [in Spanish]. Gac Sanit. 2011;25(Suppl. 1):25–31.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Ijzerman MJ, Steuten LM. Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access: a review of methods and applications. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(5):331–47.PubMedCrossRef
13.
14.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
15.
Arnold E, Yuan Y, Iloeje U, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of entecavir versus lamivudine in the first-line treatment of Australian patients with chronic hepatitis B. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2008;6(4):231–46.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Buti M, Brosa M, Casado MA, et al. Modeling the cost-effectiveness of different oral antiviral therapies in patients with chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol. 2009;51(4):640–6.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Colombo GL, Gaeta GB, Vigano M, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of different therapies in patients with chronic hepatitis B in Italy. Clin Outcomes Res. 2011;3(1):37–46.CrossRef
18.
Costa AM, L ‘italien G, Nita ME, et al. Cost-effectiveness of entecavir versus lamivudine for the suppression of viral replication in chronic hepatitis B patients in Brazil. Braz J Infect Dis. 2008;12(5):368–73.PubMed
19.
Dakin H, Bentley A, Dusheiko G. Cost-utility analysis of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Value Health. 2010;13(8):922–33.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Dakin H, Sherman M, Fung S, et al. Cost effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B from a Canadian public payer perspective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(12):1075–91.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Kanwal F, Farid M, Martin P, et al. Treatment alternatives for hepatitis B cirrhosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(9):2076–89.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Lui YY, Tsoi KK, Wong VW, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of roadmap models in chronic hepatitis B using tenofovir as the rescue therapy. Antivir Ther. 2010;15(2):145–55.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Orlewska E, Zammit D, Yuan Y, et al. The cost-effectiveness analysis of entecavir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients in Poland. Exp Clin Hepatol. 2008;4(3–4):20–8.
24.
25.
Spackman DE, Veenstra DL. A cost-effectiveness analysis of currently approved treatments for HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(11):937–49.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Veenstra DL, Sullivan SD, Clarke L, et al. Cost effectiveness of entecavir versus lamivudine with adefovir salvage in HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(11):963–77.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Veenstra DL, Spackman DE, Di Bisceglie A, et al. Evaluating anti-viral drug selection and treatment duration in HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;27(12):1240–52.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Wu B, Li T, Chen H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of nucleoside analog therapy for hepatitis B in China: a Markov analysis. Value Health. 2010;13(5):592–600.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Yuan Y, Iloeje U, Li H, et al. Economic implications of entecavir treatment in suppressing viral replication in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients in China from a perspective of the Chinese Social Security program. Value Health. 2008;11(Suppl 1):S11–22.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Yuan Y, Iloeje UH, Hay J, et al. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of entecavir versus lamivudine in hepatitis BeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B patients. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14(1):21–33.PubMed
31.
Levy AR, Kowdley KV, Iloeje U, et al. The impact of chronic hepatitis B on quality of life: a multinational study of utilities from infected and uninfected persons. Value Health. 2008;11(3):527–38.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Chang TT, Gish RG, de Man R, et al. A comparison of entecavir and lamivudine for HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1001–10.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Lai CL, Shouval D, Lok AS, et al. Entecavir versus lamivudine for patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1011–20.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Chen CJ, Yang HI, Su J, et al. Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma across a biological gradient of serum hepatitis B virus DNA level. JAMA. 2006;295:65–73.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Iloeje UH, Yang SI, Su J, et al. Predicting cirrhosis risk based on the level of circulating hepatitis B viral load. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:678–86.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Dakin H, Fidler C, Harper C. Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis evaluating the relative efficacy of nucleos(t)ides for treatment of nucleos(t)ide-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B. Value Health. 2010;13(8):934–45.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Marcellin P, Heathcote EJ, Buti M, et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus adefovir dipivoxil for chronic hepatitis B. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2442–55.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Lai CL, Rosmawati M, Lao J, et al. Entecavir is superior to lamivudine in reducing hepatitis B virus DNA in patients with chronic hepatitis B infection. Gastroenterology. 2002;123:1831–8.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Thomas HC, Manns PM, Gish RG, et al. Decline in serum HBV DNA and ALT normalization is associated with histological response among nucleoside naïve patients in entecavir phase III trials. J Hepatol. 2005;42(Suppl 2):192–3.
40.
Fattovich G, Giustina G, Schalm S, et al. Occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma and decompensation in Western European patients with cirrhosis type B. Hepatology. 1995;21:77–82.PubMed
41.
Liaw YF, Sung JJ, Chow WC, et al. Lamivudine for patients with chronic hepatitis B and advanced liver disease. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1521–31.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Davis GL, Hoofnagle JH. Spontaneous reactivation of chronic hepatitis B virus infection. Gastroenterology. 1984;86:230–5.PubMed
43.
Chan HLY, Hui AY, Wong ML, et al. Genotype C hepatitis B virus infection is associated with an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut. 2004;53:1494–8.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Heathcote EJ, Gane EJ, de Man RA, et al. Two year tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) treatment and adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) switch data in HBeAg-negative patients with chronic hepatitis B (study 102), preliminary analysis [abstract no. 158]. In: 59th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. 31 Oct–4 Nov 2008. San Francisco.
45.
Marcellin P, Buti M, Krastev Z, et al. Two year tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) treatment and adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) switch data in HBeAg-negative patients with chronic hepatitis B (study 102) [abstract no. 146]. In: 59th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. 31 Oct–4 Nov 2008. San Francisco.
46.
Gish RG, Lok AS, Chang TT, et al. Entecavir therapy for up to 96 weeks in patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(5):1437–44.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Yao G, Chen C, Lu W, et al. Efficacy and safety of entecavir compared to lamivudine in nucleoside-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B: a randomized double-blind trial in China. Hepatol Int. 2007;1(3):365–7.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Shouval D, Lai CL, Chang TT, et al. Relapse of hepatitis B in HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B patients who discontinued successful entecavir treatment: the case for continuous antiviral therapy. J Hepatol. 2009;50(2):289–95.PubMedCrossRef
49.
50.
Iloeje UH, Yang HI, Su J, et al. Predicting cirrhosis risk based on the level of circulating hepatitis B viral load. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:678–86.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Chang TT, Gish RG, de Man R, et al. A comparison of entecavir and lamivudine for HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1001–10.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Gish R, Chang T, De Man RA, et al. Entecavir results in substantial virologic and biochemical improvement and HBeAg seroconversion through 96 weeks of treatment in HBeAg(+) chronic hepatitis B patients (study ETV-022). In: 56th American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Annual Meeting; 11–15 Nov 2005; San Francisco.
53.
Liaw YF, Tai DI, Chu CM, et al. The development of cirrhosis in patients with chronic type B hepatitis: a prospective study. Hepatology. 1988;8:493–6.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Hsu YS, Chien RN, Yeh CT, et al. Long-term outcome after spontaneous HBeAg seroconversion in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Hepatology. 2002;35:1522–7.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Fattovich G, Pantalena M, Zagni I, et al. Effect of hepatitis B and C virus infections on the natural history of compensated cirrhosis: a cohort study of 297 patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:2886–95.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Lin YT, Liu YH. Epidemiological study of hepatitis B in 1990–2003 in Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2004;25(12):1083.PubMed
57.
58.
Liaw YF, Nancy L, Kao JH, et al. Asian-Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B: a 2008 update. Hepatol Int. 2008;2:263–83.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Yao G. Entecavir is a potent anti-HBV drug superior to lamivudine: experience from clinical trials in China. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;60:201–5.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Sun X, Qin WX, Li YP, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of antiviral therapies in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review of economic evidence. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;22(9):1369–77.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Angus PW. Hepatitis B: weighing the costs of treatment. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002;17(7):737–8.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Holbrook ML. Cost-effective pharmacologic therapies to treat chronic hepatitis B: how far have we really come? J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14(1):65–9.PubMed
63.
Anderson R. Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility? Health Econ. 2010;19(3):350–64.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Carande-Kulis VG, Maciosek MV, Briss PA, et al. Methods for systematic reviews of economic evaluations for the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18(1 Suppl):75–91.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Jung KT, Shin DW, Lee KJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator in the management of acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review. J Clin Neurol. 2010;6(3):117–26.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Mauskopf JA, Baker CL, Monz BU, et al. Cost effectiveness of tiotropium for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review of the evidence. J Med Econ. 2010;13(3):403–17.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Han SH. Natural course, therapeutic options and economic evaluation of therapies for chronic hepatitis B. Drugs. 2006;66(14):1831–51.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Briggs A. Transportability of comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness between countries. Value Health. 2010;13(Suppl. 1):S22–5.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Vemer P, Rutten-van Mölken MP. Largely ignored: the impact of the threshold value for a QALY on the importance of a transferability factor. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(5):397–404.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cost Effectiveness of First-Line Oral Antiviral Therapies for Chronic Hepatitis B
A Systematic Review
Authors
María Buti
Itziar Oyagüez
Virginia Lozano
Miguel A. Casado
Publication date
01-01-2013
Publisher
Springer International Publishing AG
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-012-0009-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

PharmacoEconomics 1/2013 Go to the issue

Systematic Review

The Humanistic and Economic Burden of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Correspondence

The Authors’ Reply to Allen et al.: “A Comment on Boyers et al.: ‘Eltrombopag for the Treatment of Chronic Immune or Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal’”

Leading Article

Operationalizing Value-Based Pricing of Medicines

Commentary

Reference Pricing and Price Negotiations for Innovative New Drugs

Systematic Review

A Systematic and Critical Review of the Evolving Methods and Applications of Value of Information in Academia and Practice

Correspondence

A Comment on Boyers et al.: “Eltrombopag for the Treatment of Chronic Immune or Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal”