ArticleClinical drug investigation2017
Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Between the Response-Guided Therapies and Monotherapies of Nucleos(t)ide Analogues for Chronic Hepatitis B Patients in China.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- One hundred and ninety-two weeks treatment of entecavir maleate for Chinese chronic hepatitis B predominantly genotyped B or C.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Trial
- Are Published Health Economic Models for Chronic Hepatitis B Appropriately Capturing the Benefits of HBsAg Loss? A Systematic Literature Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2020Review
- First line nucleos(t)ide analog monotherapy is more cost-effective than combination strategies in hepatitis B e antigen-positive chronic hepatitis B patients in China.Chinese medical journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveNucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) monotherapies are typically used as the primary treatment for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients, including lamivudine (LAM), telbivudine (TBV), adefovir (ADV), entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir (TDF). For high-resistance NAs (LAM, TBV, ADV), they can generate excellent clinical outcomes by using response-guided therapy; however, their pharmacoeconomic profiles remain unclear in China. We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness between response-guided therapies and monotherapies of NAs for Chinese hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive and -negative CHB patients.
methodsWe constructed a Markov model to simulate CHB progression associated with 12 treatment strategies using effectiveness and cost data from the published literature. We measured the lifetime costs, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity (especially to extend the range of the TDF price) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore the uncertainties of the model.
resultsFor both HBeAg-positive and -negative patients, no treatment strategy generated the lowest lifetime costs (US$31,185-US$31,338) and QALYs (7.54-7.58). ETV and TDF monotherapies were not dominated by other treatments, whereas, the ICER of ETV monotherapy was the lowest (US$6112/QALY-US$8533/QALY). For each high-resistance NA, compared with its monotherapy, the ICERs of its response-guided therapies were below the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$22,833/QALY. Additionally, TDF monotherapy was the preferred treatment when its price dropped to US$1820/year or lower.
conclusionAmong 12 treatment strategies evaluated, ETV monotherapy is the most cost-effective treatment for treatment-naive CHB patients in China. The response-guided therapies of high-resistance NAs are more cost-effective than their monotherapies.
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.