Wenjuan Wang, Dachuang Zhou, Kejia Zhou, Di Zhang, Hao Li, Hongliu Zhang, Xin Jiang, Ruihua Wang, Xi Wang, Wenxi Tang
{"title":"Health Economics Evaluation of Bictegravir/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir for a First-Line Treatment of HIV-1 Infection in China.","authors":"Wenjuan Wang, Dachuang Zhou, Kejia Zhou, Di Zhang, Hao Li, Hongliu Zhang, Xin Jiang, Ruihua Wang, Xi Wang, Wenxi Tang","doi":"10.2147/CEOR.S513601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the economic value of Bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir (B/F/TAF) as a first-line treatment for HIV-1 infection in China, where such evaluations are currently lacking.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We developed a monthly-cycle Markov model to evaluate the economics of B/F/TAF versus dolutegravir/lamivudine (DTG/3TC) as a first-line ART for adult HIV-1 patients over a lifelong time. The social costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) have been analyzed using health economic methods. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for the result validation. Taking into account the transmissibility of HIV, we have developed a scenario within a dynamic model across the entire population in China, to conduct a health economic evaluation of the two drugs over 30 years. Model precision was tested using relative standard deviation (RSD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the Markov model, B/F/TAF had higher per-person costs compared to DTG/3TC ($44,381.33 vs $42,160.13), but also resulted in greater QALYs (11.6771 vs 11.5389), leading to a per-person INMB of $3072.26 (WTP = 3GDP) and an ICER of $16,052.42 per QALY. Uncertainty analyses confirmed the robustness of these results. The dynamic model further indicated that B/F/TAF was both cost-benefit and cost-effective, with a per-person INMB of $7.33 (WTP = 3GDP) and an ICER of $7,953.72 per QALY, although it exhibited a higher RSD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After adopting the B/F/TAF regimen in China, the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention and treatment have significantly improved. We should advocate for B/F/TAF as the first-line treatment to enhance HIV management.</p>","PeriodicalId":47313,"journal":{"name":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","volume":"17 ","pages":"393-406"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12109003/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S513601","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the economic value of Bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir (B/F/TAF) as a first-line treatment for HIV-1 infection in China, where such evaluations are currently lacking.
Patients and methods: We developed a monthly-cycle Markov model to evaluate the economics of B/F/TAF versus dolutegravir/lamivudine (DTG/3TC) as a first-line ART for adult HIV-1 patients over a lifelong time. The social costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) have been analyzed using health economic methods. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for the result validation. Taking into account the transmissibility of HIV, we have developed a scenario within a dynamic model across the entire population in China, to conduct a health economic evaluation of the two drugs over 30 years. Model precision was tested using relative standard deviation (RSD).
Results: In the Markov model, B/F/TAF had higher per-person costs compared to DTG/3TC ($44,381.33 vs $42,160.13), but also resulted in greater QALYs (11.6771 vs 11.5389), leading to a per-person INMB of $3072.26 (WTP = 3GDP) and an ICER of $16,052.42 per QALY. Uncertainty analyses confirmed the robustness of these results. The dynamic model further indicated that B/F/TAF was both cost-benefit and cost-effective, with a per-person INMB of $7.33 (WTP = 3GDP) and an ICER of $7,953.72 per QALY, although it exhibited a higher RSD.
Conclusion: After adopting the B/F/TAF regimen in China, the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention and treatment have significantly improved. We should advocate for B/F/TAF as the first-line treatment to enhance HIV management.