Publication: A cost-utility analysis of drug treatments in patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B in Thailand
Issued Date
2014-04-14
Resource Type
ISSN
14726963
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-84899586054
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
BMC Health Services Research. Vol.14, No.1 (2014)
Suggested Citation
Narisa Tantai, Usa Chaikledkaew, Tawesak Tanwandee, Pitsaphun Werayingyong, Yot Teerawattananon A cost-utility analysis of drug treatments in patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B in Thailand. BMC Health Services Research. Vol.14, No.1 (2014). doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-170 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/34250
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
A cost-utility analysis of drug treatments in patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B in Thailand
Abstract
Background: Only lamivudine has been included for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in the National List of Essential Drugs (NLED), a pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand. There have also been no economic evaluation studies of CHB drug treatments conducted in Thailand yet. In order to fill this gap in policy research, the objective of this study was to compare the cost-utility of each drug therapy (Figure 1) with palliative care in patients with HBeAg-positive CHB. Methods. A cost-utility analysis using an economic evaluation model was performed to compare each drug treatment for HBeAg-positive CHB patients. A Markov model was used to estimate the relevant costs and health outcomes during a lifetime horizon based on a societal perspective. Direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and indirect costs were included, and health outcomes were denoted in life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The results were presented as an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) in Thai baht (THB) per LY or QALY gained. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were applied to investigate the effects of model parameter uncertainties. Results: The ICER values of providing generic lamivudine with the addition of tenofovir when drug resistance occurred, generic lamivudine with the addition of tenofovir based on the road map guideline, and tenofovir monotherapy were -14,000 (USD -467), -8,000 (USD -267), and -5,000 (USD -167) THB per QALY gained, respectively. However, when taking into account all parameter uncertainties in the model, providing generic lamivudine with the addition of tenofovir when drug resistance occurred (78% and 75%) and tenofovir monotherapy (18% and 24%) would yield higher probabilities of being cost-effective at the societal willingness to pay thresholds of 100,000 (USD 3,333) and 300,000 (USD 10,000) THB per QALY gained in Thailand, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the policy recommendations from this study, the Thai government decided to include tenofovir into the NLED in addition to generic lamivudine which is already on the list. Moreover, the results have shown that the preferred treatment regimen involves using generic lamivudine as the first-line drug with tenofovir added if drug resistance occurs in HBeAg-positive CHB patients. © 2014Tantai et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.