title: Cost effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B from a Canadian public payer perspective.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  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.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  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 treatment-naive 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.
authors.affiliation: Abacus International, Bicester, UK. Helen.Dakin@abacusint.com
authors.forename: Helen
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Dakin
authors.forename: Morris
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sherman
authors.forename: Scott
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Fung
authors.forename: Carrie
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Fidler
authors.forename: Anthony
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Bentley
mesh_terms: D000225:Adenine / Q000031:analogs & derivatives* / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000998:Antiviral Agents / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D002170:Canada; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005260:Female; D017048:Health Care Costs / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006515:Hepatitis B virus / Q000276:immunology; D019694:Hepatitis B, Chronic / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000191:economics* / Q000276:immunology; D006801:Humans; D007349:Insurance, Health, Reimbursement / Q000191:economics; D008297:Male; D009313:National Health Programs / Q000191:economics; D063065:Organophosphonates / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D018894:Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D000068698:Tenofovir; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D000998:Antiviral Agents; D063065:Organophosphonates; D018894:Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors; D000068698:Tenofovir; D000225:Adenine
references.citation: Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 May;17(5):479-500
references.pmid: 10977389
references.citation: Value Health. 2010 Dec;13(8):934-45
references.pmid: 20825624
references.citation: Can J Infect Dis. 2001 Nov;12(6):351-6
references.pmid: 18159362
references.citation: J Health Econ. 1999 Jun;18(3):341-64
references.pmid: 10537899
references.citation: Value Health. 2008 May-Jun;11(3):527-38
references.pmid: 18179664
references.citation: Gastroenterology. 2010 Oct;139(4):1218-29
references.pmid: 20600036
references.citation: Can J Gastroenterol. 2007 Jun;21 Suppl C:5C-24C
references.pmid: 17568823
references.citation: J Hepatol. 2009 Oct;51(4):640-6
references.pmid: 19576651
references.citation: Gastroenterology. 2005 Aug;129(2):528-36
references.pmid: 16083710
references.citation: Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21(1):39-48
references.pmid: 12484802
references.citation: Curr Hepat Rep. 2010 May;9(2):75-90
references.pmid: 20461127
references.citation: J Hepatol. 2009 Apr;50(4):674-83
references.pmid: 19231002
references.citation: Health Technol Assess. 2006 Aug;10(28):iii-iv, xi-xiv, 1-183
references.pmid: 16904047
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 1993 Aug 15;119(4):312-23
references.pmid: 8328741
references.citation: Gastroenterology. 2006 Dec;131(6):1743-51
references.pmid: 17087951
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2005 May 17;142(10):821-31
references.pmid: 15897532
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 16;351(12):1206-17
references.pmid: 15371578
references.citation: J Viral Hepat. 2006 Dec;13(12):787-98
references.pmid: 17109678
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2006 Mar 9;354(10):1001-10
references.pmid: 16525137
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 1998 Apr-Jun;18(2 Suppl):S68-80
references.pmid: 9566468
references.citation: Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101 Suppl 1:S1-6
references.pmid: 16448446
references.citation: Gastroenterology. 2003 Dec;125(6):1714-22
references.pmid: 14724824
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2008 Dec 4;359(23):2442-55
references.pmid: 19052126
references.citation: Antivir Ther. 2005;10(5):625-33
references.pmid: 16152756
references.citation: J Hepatol. 2003;39 Suppl 1:S3-25
references.pmid: 14708673
references.citation: J Infect Dis. 2004 Apr 1;189(7):1185-92
references.pmid: 15031786
references.citation: J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002 Feb;17(2):153-64
references.pmid: 11966945
references.citation: Gastroenterology. 2010 Oct;139(4):1207-17
references.pmid: 20600025
references.citation: J Clin Gastroenterol. 2004 Nov-Dec;38(10 Suppl 3):S179-86
references.pmid: 15602168
references.citation: Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 May;17(5):409-27
references.pmid: 10977384
references.citation: Hepatology. 1988 May-Jun;8(3):493-6
references.pmid: 3371868
references.citation: Value Health. 2010 Dec;13(8):922-33
references.pmid: 20825619
references.citation: Hepatology. 2006 Aug;44(2):318-25
references.pmid: 16871563
references.citation: Hepatology. 2009 May;49(5):1503-14
references.pmid: 19280622
references.citation: J Hepatol. 2009 Feb;50(2):227-42
references.pmid: 19054588
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2002 Jul-Aug;22(4):290-308
references.pmid: 12150595
references.citation: Liver Int. 2006 Sep;26(7):796-804
references.pmid: 16911461
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Mar 15;36(6):687-96
references.pmid: 12627352
references.citation: J Hepatol. 2008 May;48(5):728-35
references.pmid: 18329126
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 1995 May 1;122(9):664-75
references.pmid: 7702228
references.citation: Can J Infect Dis. 2001 Nov;12(6):345-50
references.pmid: 18159361
references.citation: Gut. 1991 Mar;32(3):294-8
references.pmid: 2013423
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2007 Dec 20;357(25):2576-88
references.pmid: 18094378