ArticleClinical drug investigation2016
Cost-Effectiveness of Peg-Interferon, Interferon and Oral Nucleoside Analogues in the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B and D Infections in China.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Exploratory Cost-Utility Analysis of Screening and Treating Immigrants in Canada for Hepatitis D.Journal of viral hepatitis · 2026Article
- Are Published Health Economic Models for Chronic Hepatitis B Appropriately Capturing the Benefits of HBsAg Loss? A Systematic Literature Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe cost-effectiveness of highly effective, but costly, peg-interferon (peg-IFN) treatment for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infections in China is unknown. Endemic hepatitis D virus (HDV) may also modify the effectiveness of any HBV treatment option. The objective of this study is to determine the best antiviral treatment from a societal perspective in the Chinese population, which contains a mix of HBV and HDV infections.
methodsA Markov model is developed to simulate the clinical course of CHB and chronic hepatitis D (CHD) individuals. For a hypothetical Chinese cohort of 10,000 individuals aged 30-60 years, cost-utility analysis is performed for therapies with: lamivudine, adefovir, telbivudine, entecavir, IFN and Peg-IFN. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) are discounted at 3 % annually. A one-way sensitivity analysis is also conducted.
resultsLamivudine, adefovir, telbivudine, and entecavir are all cost-effective treatments compared to palliative care at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$418, -$197, -$443 and -$317 per QALY, respectively (2015 US dollars). Peg-IFN yields a maximum 156,000 QALYs with an ICER of $1149 per QALY while IFN results in the highest cumulative mortality of 48 % along with the lowest QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirm that only Peg-IFN and ETV are the only two cost-effective options at the current willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $12,000 in China. However, entecavir has a higher probability of being cost-effective than Peg-IFN at current WTP for all age groups.
conclusionsPeg-IFN generates maximum QALYs compared to lamivudine, adefovir, telbivudine and interferon, and presents itself as a cost-effective option at current WTP. Alternatively entecavir can be used in China, generating 10 % lower QALYs than Peg-IFN but costing less than palliative care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.