Cost-effectiveness of tenofovir alafenamide fumarate for treatment of chronic hepatitis B: Evidence from a tertiary hospital in Vietnam.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Antiviral Therapy Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-07 DOI:10.1177/13596535251349054
Tran Dieu Thuy, Nguyen Thu Ha, Do Duy Cuong, Le Van Long, Nguyen Quynh Anh
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of tenofovir alafenamide fumarate for treatment of chronic hepatitis B: Evidence from a tertiary hospital in Vietnam.","authors":"Tran Dieu Thuy, Nguyen Thu Ha, Do Duy Cuong, Le Van Long, Nguyen Quynh Anh","doi":"10.1177/13596535251349054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundThis study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for chronic hepatitis B treatment from a payer's perspective in a limited-income context like Vietnam.MethodsA Markov model was developed to estimate the lifetime cost and effectiveness (measured in quality-adjusted life year, QALY) of TAF compared to TDF in the HbeAg+ patient population. Efficacy data came from clinical trials, and costs were based on 2023 data from an exit survey of 94 inpatients and 464 outpatients in Bach Mai hospital. Other clinical data were also sourced from CHB patients at Bach Mai hospital. Along with deterministic analysis, two-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, threshold, and budget impact analysis were performed.ResultsCompared to TDF, TAF yielded an additional cost of USD 3,983 and an additional QALY gained of 0.14, resulting in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 32,090 per QALY gained. The ICER exceeds the cost-effective threshold of three-time gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, that is, USD 11,348, by 2.8 times. According to one-way sensitivity analysis, ICERs were driven mainly by transition probabilities and TDF/ TAF prices. TAF would be cost-effective compared to TDF at the three-time GDP per capital threshold if TAF price were reduced by 33.4%.ConclusionsTAF is not cost-effective compared to TDF for treating chronic hepatitis B in HBeAg+ patients. The study offers relevant evidence for policymakers to consider including TAF in the social health insurance package, with a focus on price negotiation. Future updates are needed as new evidence on the effectiveness and costs of treating chronic hepatitis B emerges.</p>","PeriodicalId":8364,"journal":{"name":"Antiviral Therapy","volume":"30 3","pages":"13596535251349054"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antiviral Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13596535251349054","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundThis study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for chronic hepatitis B treatment from a payer's perspective in a limited-income context like Vietnam.MethodsA Markov model was developed to estimate the lifetime cost and effectiveness (measured in quality-adjusted life year, QALY) of TAF compared to TDF in the HbeAg+ patient population. Efficacy data came from clinical trials, and costs were based on 2023 data from an exit survey of 94 inpatients and 464 outpatients in Bach Mai hospital. Other clinical data were also sourced from CHB patients at Bach Mai hospital. Along with deterministic analysis, two-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, threshold, and budget impact analysis were performed.ResultsCompared to TDF, TAF yielded an additional cost of USD 3,983 and an additional QALY gained of 0.14, resulting in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 32,090 per QALY gained. The ICER exceeds the cost-effective threshold of three-time gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, that is, USD 11,348, by 2.8 times. According to one-way sensitivity analysis, ICERs were driven mainly by transition probabilities and TDF/ TAF prices. TAF would be cost-effective compared to TDF at the three-time GDP per capital threshold if TAF price were reduced by 33.4%.ConclusionsTAF is not cost-effective compared to TDF for treating chronic hepatitis B in HBeAg+ patients. The study offers relevant evidence for policymakers to consider including TAF in the social health insurance package, with a focus on price negotiation. Future updates are needed as new evidence on the effectiveness and costs of treating chronic hepatitis B emerges.

富马酸替诺福韦阿拉法胺治疗慢性乙型肝炎的成本效益:来自越南一家三级医院的证据。
本研究旨在从付款人的角度评估富马酸替诺福韦(TAF)与富马酸替诺福韦(TDF)治疗慢性乙型肝炎的成本效益,在越南等收入有限的国家。方法建立马尔可夫模型,对HbeAg+患者群体中TAF与TDF的终生成本和有效性(以质量调整生命年(QALY)衡量)进行评估。疗效数据来自临床试验,成本基于对巴赫迈医院94名住院患者和464名门诊患者的2023年出口调查数据。其他临床数据也来自巴赫迈医院的慢性乙型肝炎患者。除确定性分析外,还进行了双向敏感性分析、概率敏感性分析、阈值分析和预算影响分析。结果与TDF相比,TAF产生了3,983美元的额外成本,获得了0.14美元的额外质量aly,导致每获得一个质量aly的增量成本效益比(ICER)为32,090美元。ICER超过人均国内生产总值(GDP)的3倍即11348美元的成本效益阈值2.8倍。单向敏感性分析表明,ICERs主要受转移概率和TDF/ TAF价格驱动。如果TAF价格降低33.4%,在人均国内生产总值的三倍门槛下,TAF与TDF相比将具有成本效益。结论与TDF相比,staf治疗HBeAg+患者慢性乙型肝炎的成本效益不高。该研究为政策制定者考虑将TAF纳入社会健康保险方案提供了相关证据,重点是价格谈判。随着关于治疗慢性乙型肝炎的有效性和成本的新证据的出现,需要进一步更新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Antiviral Therapy
Antiviral Therapy 医学-病毒学
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
35
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Antiviral Therapy (an official publication of the International Society of Antiviral Research) is an international, peer-reviewed journal devoted to publishing articles on the clinical development and use of antiviral agents and vaccines, and the treatment of all viral diseases. Antiviral Therapy is one of the leading journals in virology and infectious diseases. The journal is comprehensive, and publishes articles concerning all clinical aspects of antiviral therapy. It features editorials, original research papers, specially commissioned review articles, letters and book reviews. The journal is aimed at physicians and specialists interested in clinical and basic research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信