Telbivudine for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B in HBeAg-positive patients in China: a health economic analysis

Abstract

Background: Nucleos(t)ide analogs (NUCs) are the standard of care for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). The present analysis aimed to determine the cost effectiveness of NUCs in Chinese healthcare settings.

Methods: A Markov model was used to simulate two therapeutic strategies for a hypothetical patient cohort diagnosed with hepatitis B e antigen-positive CHB, unwilling or unable to receive interferon therapy, and about to start treatment with any NUC. The first strategy included NUC monotherapy without sequencing (telbivudine [LDT], entecavir [ETV], tenofovir [TDF], lamivudine [LAM], adefovir dipivoxil [ADV], and combination therapies of either LDT and ADV or LDT and TDF, followed by best supportive care [BSC]). The second strategy included sequential therapies of individual NUCs: LAM → ADV, ADV → LAM, LDT → ADV, and ETV → ADV, followed by BSC. The analysis included two scenarios: with and without costs due to nephrotoxicity. Renal impact was quantified as costs alone, without consideration for quality of life decrements.

Results: When renal impact was not considered, without treatment sequencing, LDT was cost effective compared with other NUCs. Amongst the strategies with sequencing, LDT → ADV was cost effective. The results were similar when renal impact was considered. However, LDT strategy demonstrated better cost effectiveness. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, in both scenarios, LDT → ADV sequence was cost effective with 51 % probability even at willingness to pay of $20,000.

Conclusion: Use of LDT, as compared with other NUCs, is cost effective in CHB treatment in Chinese healthcare settings. Considering the detrimental renal impact, overall costs for all treatment options were increased. However, the increase for LDT was comparatively small.

Keywords: Chronic hepatitis B; Cost effectiveness; Renal impairment; Telbivudine.

Fig. 1

Schematic representation of the Markov model structure

Fig. 2

Cost-effectiveness frontier a without renal impact and b including renal impact. ADV adefovir dipivoxil, BSC best supportive care, CE cost-effectiveness, ETV entecavir, LAM lamivudine, LDT telbivudine, QALY quality-adjusted life-year, TDF tenofovir

Fig. 3

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve a without renal impact and b with renal impact. ADV adefovir dipivoxil, BSC best supportive care, ETV entecavir, LAM lamivudine, LDT telbivudine, TDF tenofovir