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
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2008

01-10-2008 | Original Research Article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of entecavir versus lamivudine in the first-line treatment of Australian patients with chronic hepatitis B

Authors: Ms Elizabeth Arnold, Yong Yuan, Uchenna Iloeje, Greg Cook

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 4/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) virus infection is a major global healthcare problem. The recent introduction of entecavir in Australia for the treatment of CHB patients in the naive treatment setting has triggered significant optimism with regards to improved clinical outcomes for CHB patients.

Objective

To estimate, from an Australian healthcare perspective, the cost effectiveness of entecavir 0.5mg/day versus lamivudine 100mg/day in the treatment of CHB patients naive to nucleos(t)ide therapy.

Methods

A cost-utility analysis to project the clinical and economic outcomes associated with CHB disease and treatment was conducted by developing two decision-tree models specific to hepatitis B e antigen-positive (HBeAg+ve) and HBeAg−ve CHB patient subsets. This analysis was constructed using the Australian payer perspective of direct costs and outcomes, with indirect medical costs and lost productivity not being included. The study population comprised a hypothetical cohort of 1000 antiviral treatment-naive CHB patients who received either entecavir 0.5mg/day or lamivudine 100 mg/day at model entry. The population of patients used in this analysis was representative of those patients likely to receive initial antiviral therapy in clinical practice in Australia. The long-term cost effectiveness of entecavir compared with lamivudine in the first-line treatment of CHB patients was expressed as an incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) or QALY gained.

Results

Results revealed that the availability of entecavir 0.5mg/day as part of the Australian hepatologist’s treatment armamentarium should result in significantly lower future rates of compensated cirrhosis (CC), decompensated cirrhosis (DC), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) events (i.e. 54 fewer cases of CC, seven fewer cases of DC, and 20 fewer cases of HCC over the model’s timeframe for HBeAg+ve CHB patients, and 69 fewer cases of CC, eight fewer cases of DC and 25 fewer cases of HCC over the model’s timeframe for HBeAg−ve CHB patients). Compared with lamivudine 100 mg/day, entecavir 0.5 mg/day generated an estimated incremental cost per LYG of Australian dollars ($A, year 2006 values) 5046 and an estimated incremental cost per QALY of $A5952 in the HBeAg+ve CHB patient population, an estimated incremental cost per LYG of $A7063 and an estimated incremental cost per QALY of $A8003 in the HBeAg−ve CHB patient population, and an overall estimated incremental cost per LYG of $A5853 and an estimated incremental cost per QALY of $A6772 in the general CHB population.

Conclusion

The availability of entecavir in Australian clinical practice should make long-term suppression of hepatitis B virus replication increasingly attainable, resulting in fewer CHB sequelae, at an acceptable financial cost.
Footnotes
1
1Telbivudine is the most recent antiviral drug approved by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) for the treatment of CHB (PBS listed December 2008). However, telbivudine is not included in this analysis as the PBAC recommendation for telbivudine (HBeAg+ve CHB patients only) is narrower than that of entecavir and lamivudine (HBeAg+ve and HBeAg−ve CHB patients).
 
Literature
1.
Andre F. Hepatitis B: a comprehensive prevention, diagnosis and treatment program. Past, present and future. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 19: S1–4PubMedCrossRef
2.
Alter MJ. Epidemiology and prevention of hepatitis B. Sem Liver Dis 2003; 23: 39–46CrossRef
3.
Williams A. Reduction in the hepatitis B related burden of disease: measuring the success of universal immunisation programs. Commun Dis Intell 2002; 26: 458–60
4.
5.
Papatheodoridis GV, Dimou E, Papadimitropoulos V. Nucleos(t)ide analogues for CHB: antiviral efficacy and viral resistance. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1618–28PubMedCrossRef
6.
Conjeevaram HS, Lok AS. Management of CHB. J Hepatol 2003; Suppl. 31: S90–103
7.
Papatheodoridis GV, Hadziyannis SJ. Current management of CHB. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 19: 25–37PubMedCrossRef
8.
Leung NW, Lai CL, Chang TT, et al. Extended lamivudine treatment in patients with CHB enhances hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion rates: results after 3 years of therapy. Hepatology 2001; 33: 1527–32PubMedCrossRef
9.
Andreone P, Gramenzi A, Cursaro C, et al. High risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in anti-HBe positive liver cirrhosis patients developing lamivudine resistance. J Viral Hepat 2004; 11: 439–42PubMedCrossRef
10.
Lavanchy D. Hepatitis B: viral epidemiology, disease burden, treatment, and current and emerging prevention and control measures. J Viral Hepat 2004; 11: 97–107PubMedCrossRef
11.
Gish RG. Clinical trial results of new therapies for HBV: implications for treatment guidelines. Sem Liver Dis 2005; 25: 29–39CrossRef
12.
Perrillo RP. Therapy of hepatitis B: viral suppression or eradication. Hepatology 2006; 43(2 Suppl. 1): S182–S193PubMedCrossRef
13.
14.
Yim HJ, Lok AS. Natural history of CHB virus infection: what we knew in 1981 and what we know in 2005. Hepatology 2006; 43: S173–81PubMedCrossRef
15.
Chang TT, Gish RG, de Man R, et al. A comparison of entecavir and lamivudine for HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B. NEJM 2006; 354: 1001–10PubMedCrossRef
16.
Lai CL, Shouval D, Lok AS, et al. Entecavir versus lamivudine for patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B. NEJM 2006; 354: 1011–20PubMedCrossRef
17.
Yuan Y, Iloeje U, Hau 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: 21–33PubMed
18.
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): S11–22PubMedCrossRef
19.
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: 65–73PubMedCrossRef
20.
Iloeje UH, Yang SI, Su J, et al. Predicting cirrhosis risk based on the level of circulating hepatitis B viral load. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 678–86PubMedCrossRef
21.
EASL Jury. EASL International Consensus Conference on Hepatitis B: consensus Statement. J Hepatol 2003; 39: S3–25CrossRef
22.
Liaw YF, Leung N, Guan R, et al. Asian-Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B: a 2005 update. Liver Int 2005; 25: 472–89PubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
Keeffe EB, Dieterich DT, Han SB, et al. A treatment algorithm for the management of CHB virus infection in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2: 87–106PubMedCrossRef
25.
Sherman M, Yurdaydin C, Sollano J, et al. Entecavir for treatment of lamivudine-refractory, HBEAg-positive chronic hepatitis B. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 2039–49PubMedCrossRef
26.
Colonno RJ, Rose R, Baldick CJ, et al. Entecavir resistance is rare in nucleoside naive patients with hepatitis B. J Hepatol 2006; 44: 1656–65CrossRef
27.
Colonno RJ, Rose RE, Pokornowski K, et al. Four year assessment of entecavir resistance in nucleoside-naive and lamivudine refractory patients. J Hepatol 2007; 46(Suppl. 1): S294CrossRef
28.
Tenney DJ, Levine SM, Rose RE, et al. Clinical emergence of entecavir-resistant hepatitis B virus requires additional substitutions in virus already resistant to lamivudine. Antimicrobial Agents Chemother 2004; 48: 3498–507CrossRef
29.
Osiowy C, Heathcote J, Zoulim F, et al. Resistance to adefovir dipivoxil in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B [abstract]. Hepatology 2005; 42, S1 (p586A): 993
30.
Lee Y, Suh D, Lim Y, et al. Emergence of rtA181V/Tand rtN236T mutations after 48 weeks of adefovir dipivoxil therapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B [abstract]. Hepatology 2005; 42, S1 (p578A): 972CrossRef
31.
Lee C, Yeon J, Hong S, et al. More frequent and earlier emergence of adefovir resistance mutations in lamivudine resistant patients treated with ADV compared to previously reported nucleos(t)ide-treatment naive patients [abstract]. Hepatology 2005; 42, S1 (p593A): 1009CrossRef
32.
33.
Gish RG, Lok SS, Chang TT, et al. Entecavir therapy for up to 96 weeks in patients with HBeAg positive chronic hepatitis B. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 1347–54CrossRef
34.
Peters MG, Hann HW, Martin P, et al. Adefovir dipivoxil alone or in combination with lamivudine in patients with lamivudine-resistant CHB. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: 91–101PubMedCrossRef
35.
Angus P, Locarnini S. Lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B virus and ongoing lamivudine therapy: stop the merry-go-round, it’s time to get off! Antivir Ther 2004; 9: 145–8PubMed
36.
Bell SJ, Lau A, Thompson A, et al. Chronic hepatitis B: recommendations for therapy based on the natural history of disease in Australian patients. J Clin Virol 2005; 32: 122–7PubMedCrossRef
37.
Yang HI, Iloeje UH, SU J, et al. Progression to decompensated cirrhosis in chronic hepatitis B virus infected persons is strongly associated with baseline viral load [poster]. 40th European Society for the Study of Liver Meeting; 2005 Apr 13-17; Paris. J Hepatol 2005; 42: 195CrossRef
38.
39.
Durand-Zaleski I, Zaleski S. DEALE-ing and discounting: a simple way to compute the accrued costs of preventative strategies. Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 98–103PubMedCrossRef
40.
Bolondi L, Sofia S, Siringo S, et al. Surveillance programme of cirrhotic patients for early diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Gut 2001; 48: 251–9PubMedCrossRef
41.
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: 2886–95PubMedCrossRef
42.
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): 527–38PubMedCrossRef
43.
44.
Butler JRG, Piank S, Korda RJ, et al. The direct cost of managing patients with CHB infection in Australia. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004; 30: 187–92CrossRef
45.
Mohamed R, Desmond P, Dong-Jin S, et al. Practical difficulties in the management of hepatitis B in the Asia-Pacific region. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 19: 958–69PubMedCrossRef
46.
O’sullivan BG, Gidding HF, Law M, et al. Estimates of CHB virus infection in Australia, 2000. Aust N Z J Pub Health 2004; 28: 212–6
47.
Amin J, Law MG, Bartlett M, et al. Causes of death after diagnosis of hepatitis B or hepatitis C infection: a large community-based linkage study. Lancet 2006; 368: 938–45PubMedCrossRef
48.
49.
50.
Ohkubo K, Kato Y, Ichikawa T, et al. Viral load is a significant prognostic factor for hepatitis B virus-associated hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 2002; 94: 2663–8PubMedCrossRef
51.
Mommeja-Manin 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: 1309–19CrossRef
52.
Ohata K, Hamasaki K, Toriyama K, et al. High viral load is a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with CHB virus infection. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 19: 670–5PubMedCrossRef
53.
Yu MW, Yeh SH, Chen PJ, et al. Hepatitis B virus genotype and DNA level and hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective study in men. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 265–72PubMedCrossRef
54.
Krajden M, McNabb G, Petric M. The laboratory diagnosis of hepatitis B virus. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2005; 16: 65–72PubMed
55.
Marco VD, Marzano A, Lampertico P, et al. Clinical outcome of HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B in relation to virological response to lamivudine. Hepatology 2004; 40: 883–91PubMed
Metadata
Title
Cost-effectiveness analysis of entecavir versus lamivudine in the first-line treatment of Australian patients with chronic hepatitis B
Authors
Ms Elizabeth Arnold
Yong Yuan
Uchenna Iloeje
Greg Cook
Publication date
01-10-2008
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 4/2008
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03256136

Other articles of this Issue 4/2008

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2008 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination against rotavirus with RIX4414 in France

Original Research Article

A Pharmacoeconomic analysis of compliance gains on antipsychotic medications

Practical Application

Community-based interventions to promote increased physical activity

Original Research Article

Does extending health insurance coverage to the uninsured improve population health outcomes?