在中国新的以量为基础的采购政策下,替诺福韦阿拉那胺治疗慢性乙型肝炎的成本效益优于富马酸替诺福韦二氧吡酯和恩替卡韦。

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-07-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0327298
Yi Lin, Xueyan Lin, Ruiqi Xia, Juan Chen, Zhihui Lin, Shiyun Lu
{"title":"在中国新的以量为基础的采购政策下,替诺福韦阿拉那胺治疗慢性乙型肝炎的成本效益优于富马酸替诺福韦二氧吡酯和恩替卡韦。","authors":"Yi Lin, Xueyan Lin, Ruiqi Xia, Juan Chen, Zhihui Lin, Shiyun Lu","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0327298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence supports the long-term efficacy of Nucleos(t)ide Analogs (NAs) therapy in improving chronic hepatitis B (CHB) prognosis. However, determining the most cost-effective first-line NAs remains unclear. China's implementation of the New Volume-Based Procurement Policy (NVBP Policy) in 2019 led to substantial price reductions for entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF). This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of ETV, TDF, and TAF, both with and without NVBP, for CHB in China.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A state-transition model, parameterized using data from published literature, was utilized to compare treatment strategies encompassing non-NAs best support care (BSC), ETV, TDF, and TAF, with or without NVBP. A simulated lifetime cohort was employed, measuring outcomes such as predicted liver-related deaths, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In comparison to Non-NAs BSC, TAF yielded an additional 2.68 QALYs per person, with an ICER of 7,853.22 USD/QALY. Subsequently, TDF generated an additional 2.61 QALYs/person at an ICER of 7,153.39 USD/QALY, and ETV produced an additional 2.01 QALYs/person with an ICER of 9,366.74 USD/QALY without NVBP. Incorporating NVBP, the ICERs for TAF, TDF, and ETV decreased to -745.62 USD/QALY, -729.33 USD/QALY, and -871.11 USD/QALY, respectively, compared to non-NAs BSC. At willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds ranging from 12,500 USD/QALY to 37,500 USD/QALY, TAF with NVBP showed an increased probability (51.15-52.47%) of being the optimal treatment strategy, followed by TDF and ETV with NVBP exhibiting a reduced likelihood 43.09-42.45% and 6.40-4.48% in the iterations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analysis suggests that TAF with NVBP represents the most cost-effective long-term therapy for CHB. Both TDF and ETV, with or without NVBP, and TAF without NVBP were considered cost-ineffective.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 7","pages":"e0327298"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12250602/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tenofovir alafenamide is superior to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir in cost-effectiveness of treatment of chronic hepatitis B in china with new volume-based procurement policy.\",\"authors\":\"Yi Lin, Xueyan Lin, Ruiqi Xia, Juan Chen, Zhihui Lin, Shiyun Lu\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0327298\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence supports the long-term efficacy of Nucleos(t)ide Analogs (NAs) therapy in improving chronic hepatitis B (CHB) prognosis. However, determining the most cost-effective first-line NAs remains unclear. China's implementation of the New Volume-Based Procurement Policy (NVBP Policy) in 2019 led to substantial price reductions for entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF). This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of ETV, TDF, and TAF, both with and without NVBP, for CHB in China.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A state-transition model, parameterized using data from published literature, was utilized to compare treatment strategies encompassing non-NAs best support care (BSC), ETV, TDF, and TAF, with or without NVBP. A simulated lifetime cohort was employed, measuring outcomes such as predicted liver-related deaths, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In comparison to Non-NAs BSC, TAF yielded an additional 2.68 QALYs per person, with an ICER of 7,853.22 USD/QALY. Subsequently, TDF generated an additional 2.61 QALYs/person at an ICER of 7,153.39 USD/QALY, and ETV produced an additional 2.01 QALYs/person with an ICER of 9,366.74 USD/QALY without NVBP. Incorporating NVBP, the ICERs for TAF, TDF, and ETV decreased to -745.62 USD/QALY, -729.33 USD/QALY, and -871.11 USD/QALY, respectively, compared to non-NAs BSC. At willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds ranging from 12,500 USD/QALY to 37,500 USD/QALY, TAF with NVBP showed an increased probability (51.15-52.47%) of being the optimal treatment strategy, followed by TDF and ETV with NVBP exhibiting a reduced likelihood 43.09-42.45% and 6.40-4.48% in the iterations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analysis suggests that TAF with NVBP represents the most cost-effective long-term therapy for CHB. Both TDF and ETV, with or without NVBP, and TAF without NVBP were considered cost-ineffective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"20 7\",\"pages\":\"e0327298\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12250602/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327298\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327298","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有证据支持核苷类似物(NAs)治疗改善慢性乙型肝炎(CHB)预后的长期疗效。然而,确定最具成本效益的一线NAs仍不清楚。中国在2019年实施了新的批量采购政策(NVBP政策),导致恩替卡韦(ETV)、富马酸替诺福韦(TDF)和替诺福韦(TAF)的价格大幅下降。本研究在中国评估了有无NVBP的情况下,ETV、TDF和TAF治疗CHB的成本-效果。方法:使用已发表文献的数据参数化状态转换模型,比较有无NVBP的治疗策略,包括非nas最佳支持护理(BSC)、ETV、TDF和TAF。采用模拟终身队列,测量预测肝脏相关死亡、成本、质量调整生命年(QALYs)和增量成本-效果比(ICERs)等结果。结果:与Non-NAs BSC相比,TAF每人额外产生2.68个QALY, ICER为7,853.22美元/QALY。随后,TDF产生了额外的2.61个QALYs/人,ICER为7,153.39美元/QALY, ETV产生了额外的2.01个QALYs/人,ICER为9,366.74美元/QALY,没有NVBP。与非nas BSC相比,纳入NVBP后,TAF、TDF和ETV的ICERs分别降至-745.62美元/QALY、-729.33美元/QALY和-871.11美元/QALY。在支付意愿(WTP)阈值范围为12,500美元/QALY至37,500美元/QALY时,TAF联合NVBP成为最佳治疗策略的可能性增加(51.15-52.47%),其次是TDF和ETV联合NVBP,其可能性降低(43.09-42.45%)和6.40-4.48%。结论:我们的分析表明,TAF联合NVBP是治疗慢性乙型肝炎最具成本效益的长期治疗方法。TDF和ETV,无论有无NVBP, TAF不带NVBP都被认为是成本无效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Tenofovir alafenamide is superior to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir in cost-effectiveness of treatment of chronic hepatitis B in china with new volume-based procurement policy.

Tenofovir alafenamide is superior to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir in cost-effectiveness of treatment of chronic hepatitis B in china with new volume-based procurement policy.

Tenofovir alafenamide is superior to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir in cost-effectiveness of treatment of chronic hepatitis B in china with new volume-based procurement policy.

Tenofovir alafenamide is superior to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir in cost-effectiveness of treatment of chronic hepatitis B in china with new volume-based procurement policy.

Background: Evidence supports the long-term efficacy of Nucleos(t)ide Analogs (NAs) therapy in improving chronic hepatitis B (CHB) prognosis. However, determining the most cost-effective first-line NAs remains unclear. China's implementation of the New Volume-Based Procurement Policy (NVBP Policy) in 2019 led to substantial price reductions for entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF). This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of ETV, TDF, and TAF, both with and without NVBP, for CHB in China.

Methods: A state-transition model, parameterized using data from published literature, was utilized to compare treatment strategies encompassing non-NAs best support care (BSC), ETV, TDF, and TAF, with or without NVBP. A simulated lifetime cohort was employed, measuring outcomes such as predicted liver-related deaths, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results: In comparison to Non-NAs BSC, TAF yielded an additional 2.68 QALYs per person, with an ICER of 7,853.22 USD/QALY. Subsequently, TDF generated an additional 2.61 QALYs/person at an ICER of 7,153.39 USD/QALY, and ETV produced an additional 2.01 QALYs/person with an ICER of 9,366.74 USD/QALY without NVBP. Incorporating NVBP, the ICERs for TAF, TDF, and ETV decreased to -745.62 USD/QALY, -729.33 USD/QALY, and -871.11 USD/QALY, respectively, compared to non-NAs BSC. At willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds ranging from 12,500 USD/QALY to 37,500 USD/QALY, TAF with NVBP showed an increased probability (51.15-52.47%) of being the optimal treatment strategy, followed by TDF and ETV with NVBP exhibiting a reduced likelihood 43.09-42.45% and 6.40-4.48% in the iterations.

Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that TAF with NVBP represents the most cost-effective long-term therapy for CHB. Both TDF and ETV, with or without NVBP, and TAF without NVBP were considered cost-ineffective.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信