IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v29y2011i12p1075-1091.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B from a Canadian Public Payer Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Helen Dakin
  • Morris Sherman
  • Scott Fung
  • Carrie Fidler
  • Anthony Bentley

Abstract

Introduction: Previous research has demonstrated that tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF) is the most cost-effective nucleos(t)ide treatment for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in the UK, Spain, Italy and France. However, to our knowledge, no published studies have yet evaluated the cost effectiveness of any treatments for CHB in a Canadian setting, where relative prices and management of CHB differ from those in Europe. Aim: Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of tenofovir DF compared with other nucleos(t)ide therapies licensed for CHB in Canada from the perspective of publicly funded healthcare payers. Methods: A Markov model was used to calculate the costs and benefits of nucleos(t)ide therapy in three groups of patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and -negative CHB: nucleos(t)ide-naive patients without cirrhosis; nucleos(t)ide-naive patients with compensated cirrhosis; and lamivudine- resistant patients. Disease progression was modelled as annual transitions between 18 disease states. Transition probabilities, quality of life and costs were based on published studies. Health benefits were measured in QALYs. The reference year for costs was 2007 and costs and outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. Results: First-line tenofovir DF was the most effective nucleos(t)ide strategy for managing CHB, generating 6.85–9.39 QALYs per patient. First-line tenofovir DF was also the most cost-effective strategy in all patient subgroups investigated, costing between $Can43 758 and $Can48 015 per QALY gained compared with lamivudine then tenofovir. First-line tenofovir DF strongly dominated first-line entecavir. Giving tenofovir DF monotherapy immediately after lamivudine resistance developed was less costly and more effective than any other active treatment strategy investigated for lamivudine-resistant CHB, including second-line use of adefovir or adefovir + lamivudine. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated 50% confidence that first-line tenofovir DF is the most cost-effective nucleos(t)ide strategy for treatmentnaive patients with CHB, at a $Can50 000 per QALY threshold, and confirmed that first-line tenofovir DF has the highest expected net benefits. Conclusions: First-line tenofovir DF appears to be the most cost-effective nucleos(t)ide treatment for both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic CHB patients in Canada, providing that society is willing to pay at least $Can48 015 per QALY gained, although sensitivity analyses highlighted uncertainty around the results. Copyright Springer International Publishing AG 2011

Suggested Citation

  • Helen Dakin & Morris Sherman & Scott Fung & Carrie Fidler & Anthony Bentley, 2011. "Cost Effectiveness of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B from a Canadian Public Payer Perspective," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(12), pages 1075-1091, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:29:y:2011:i:12:p:1075-1091
    DOI: 10.2165/11589260-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11589260-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11589260-000000000-00000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(2_suppl), pages 68-80, April.
    2. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    3. Andrew H. Briggs & Ron Goeree & Gord Blackhouse & Bernie J. O’Brien, 2002. "Probabilistic Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness Models: Choosing between Treatment Strategies for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(4), pages 290-308, August.
    4. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Paul Kind & Geoffrey Hardman & Susan Macran, 1999. "UK population norms for EQ-5D," Working Papers 172chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    6. Claxton, Karl, 1999. "The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 341-364, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simon Eckermann & Andrew Willan, 2011. "Presenting Evidence and Summary Measures to Best Inform Societal Decisions When Comparing Multiple Strategies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(7), pages 563-577, July.
    2. Haitham Tuffaha & Shelley Roberts & Wendy Chaboyer & Louisa Gordon & Paul Scuffham, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis of Nutritional Support for Preventing Pressure Ulcers in High-risk Patients: Implement Now, Research Later," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 167-179, April.
    3. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    4. Martin Henriksson & Fredrik Lundgren & Per Carlsson, 2006. "Informing the efficient use of health care and health care research resources ‐ the case of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1311-1322, December.
    5. Stefano Conti & Karl Claxton, 2008. "Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design," Working Papers 038cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    6. Elamin H. Elbasha, 2005. "Risk aversion and uncertainty in cost‐effectiveness analysis: the expected‐utility, moment‐generating function approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 457-470, May.
    7. Casey Quinn, 2005. "Generalisable regression methods for costeffectiveness using copulas," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 05/13, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Mohan V. Bala & Gary A. Zarkin & Josephine Mauskopf, 2008. "Presenting results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis: the incremental benefit curve," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 435-440, March.
    9. Nikki McCaffrey & Meera Agar & Janeane Harlum & Jonathon Karnon & David Currow & Simon Eckermann, 2015. "Better Informing Decision Making with Multiple Outcomes Cost-Effectiveness Analysis under Uncertainty in Cost-Disutility Space," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    10. Karl Claxton & Stephen Palmer & Louise Longworth & Laura Bojke & Susan Griffin & Claire McKenna & Marta Soares & Eldon Spackman & Jihee Youn, 2011. "Uncertainty, evidence and irrecoverable costs: Informing approval, pricing and research decisions for health technologies," Working Papers 069cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    11. Brennan, Alan & Kharroubi, Samer A., 2007. "Efficient computation of partial expected value of sample information using Bayesian approximation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 122-148, January.
    12. Moreno, E. & Girón, F.J. & Martínez, M.L. & Vázquez-Polo, F.J. & Negrín, M.A., 2013. "Optimal treatments in cost-effectiveness analysis in the presence of covariates: Improving patient subgroup definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 173-182.
    13. Anthony O'Hagan & Matt Stevenson & Jason Madan, 2007. "Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis for patient level simulation models: efficient estimation of mean and variance using ANOVA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1009-1023.
    14. Palmer, Stephen & Smith, Peter C., 2000. "Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 755-766, September.
    15. Frank G. Sandmann & Julie V. Robotham & Sarah R. Deeny & W. John Edmunds & Mark Jit, 2018. "Estimating the opportunity costs of bed‐days," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 592-605, March.
    16. Helen Dakin & Sarah Wordsworth, 2013. "Cost‐Minimisation Analysis Versus Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis, Revisited," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 22-34, January.
    17. Klemen Naveršnik, 2015. "Output correlations in probabilistic models with multiple alternatives," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 133-139, March.
    18. Andrea Manca & Nigel Rice & Mark J. Sculpher & Andrew H. Briggs, 2005. "Assessing generalisability by location in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the use of multilevel models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 471-485, May.
    19. Janne Martikainen & Hannu Valtonen & Tuula Pirttilä, 2004. "Potential cost-effectiveness of a family-based program in mild Alzheimer’s disease patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(2), pages 136-142, May.
    20. Meltzer, David, 2001. "Addressing uncertainty in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: Implications of expected utility maximization for methods to perform sensitivity analysis and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis to s," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 109-129, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:29:y:2011:i:12:p:1075-1091. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.