Cost-effectiveness of switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide versus entecavir for chronic hepatitis B patients in Greece.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of comparative effectiveness research Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-06 DOI:10.57264/cer-2023-0090
Emmanouil Sinakos, Nandita Kachru, Christos Tsoulas, Sushanth Jeyakumar, Nathaniel J Smith, Alon Yehoshua, Evangelos Cholongitas
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide versus entecavir for chronic hepatitis B patients in Greece.","authors":"Emmanouil Sinakos, Nandita Kachru, Christos Tsoulas, Sushanth Jeyakumar, Nathaniel J Smith, Alon Yehoshua, Evangelos Cholongitas","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> This study assessed the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) to either tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) or entecavir (ETV) in a Greek chronic hepatitis B (CHB) population. <b>Patients & methods:</b> A Markov model from the perspective of a third-party payer in Greece quantified the health and economic benefits of switching from TDF to either TAF or ETV over a lifetime horizon. <b>Results:</b> Over a lifetime, patients who switch from TDF to TAF versus patients who switch from TDF to ETV had an overall lower incidence of compensated cirrhosis (0.4% lower), decompensated cirrhosis (0.04% lower) and hepatocellular carcinoma (0.25% lower). Chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease were also lower in patients who switch to TAF; major osteoporotic fractures were similar for both groups. While total costs were higher for switching from TDF to TAF versus TDF to ETV due to the higher cost of TAF, switching from TDF to TAF versus ETV was cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €17,113 per quality-adjusted life year. <b>Conclusion:</b> Switching from TDF to TAF in patients living with CHB is a cost effective strategy to reduce adverse liver disease outcomes, while improving bone- and renal-related safety outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e230090"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11044955/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0090","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: This study assessed the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) to either tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) or entecavir (ETV) in a Greek chronic hepatitis B (CHB) population. Patients & methods: A Markov model from the perspective of a third-party payer in Greece quantified the health and economic benefits of switching from TDF to either TAF or ETV over a lifetime horizon. Results: Over a lifetime, patients who switch from TDF to TAF versus patients who switch from TDF to ETV had an overall lower incidence of compensated cirrhosis (0.4% lower), decompensated cirrhosis (0.04% lower) and hepatocellular carcinoma (0.25% lower). Chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease were also lower in patients who switch to TAF; major osteoporotic fractures were similar for both groups. While total costs were higher for switching from TDF to TAF versus TDF to ETV due to the higher cost of TAF, switching from TDF to TAF versus ETV was cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €17,113 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Switching from TDF to TAF in patients living with CHB is a cost effective strategy to reduce adverse liver disease outcomes, while improving bone- and renal-related safety outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
希腊慢性乙型肝炎患者从富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯转为替诺福韦-阿拉非那胺与恩替卡韦的成本效益对比。
目的:本研究评估了希腊慢性乙型肝炎(CHB)患者从富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯(TDF)转为替诺福韦-阿拉非那胺(TAF)或恩替卡韦(ETV)的临床影响和成本效益。患者与方法:从希腊第三方支付机构的角度建立马尔可夫模型,量化从 TDF 转为 TAF 或 ETV 在一生中的健康和经济效益。结果显示在一生中,从 TDF 转为 TAF 的患者与从 TDF 转为 ETV 的患者相比,代偿性肝硬化(低 0.4%)、失代偿性肝硬化(低 0.04%)和肝细胞癌(低 0.25%)的发病率总体较低。改用 TAF 的患者患慢性肾病和终末期肾病的比例也较低;两组患者的主要骨质疏松性骨折发生率相似。虽然由于TAF的成本较高,从TDF转为TAF与从TDF转为ETV相比总成本较高,但从TDF转为TAF与从TAF转为ETV相比具有成本效益,每质量调整生命年的增量成本效益比为17,113欧元。结论对于慢性乙型肝炎患者来说,从 TDF 转为 TAF 是一种具有成本效益的策略,可以减少肝病的不良后果,同时改善骨骼和肾脏相关的安全性。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
期刊最新文献
Advancing the role of real-world evidence in comparative effectiveness research. Clinical assessment of the potential use of a novel single-dose prefilled injection device for the administration of Acthar Gel in children: a narrative review. A novel injection device to administer repository corticotropin injection for inflammatory disease treatment: findings from a market research study. Healthcare costs and resource utilization of patients with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder: a retrospective US claims analysis of commercially insured patients. Managing the challenges of paying for gene therapy: strategies for market action and policy reform in the United States.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1