ArticleCancers2024
Cost-Utility Analysis of Tenofovir Alafenamide and Entecavir in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients: A Markov Decision Model.
Article in Cancers, 2024. 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.
- Prospective Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate (TAF) in European Real-World Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B: A Single-Centre Real-Word Cohort Study.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Observational
- The Cost-Effectiveness of Tenofovir Alafenamide for Chronic Hepatitis B Virus in Taiwan.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
From the perspective of health economics, the evaluation of drug-related cost effectiveness and clinical utility is crucial. We conducted a cost-utility analysis of two first-line drugs, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and entecavir (ETV), in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. We performed inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to match the independent variables between the two treatment groups. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the two treatment groups was simulated using a decision tree with the Markov annual-cycle model. A total of 54 patients treated with TAF and 98 with ETV from January 2016 to December 2020 were enrolled. The total medical cost in the TAF group was NT$76,098 less than that in the ETV group, and TAF demonstrated more effectiveness than ETV by 3.19 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). When the time horizon was set at 30 years, the ICER of the TAF group compared with the ETV group was -NT$23,878 per QALY, suggesting more cost savings for TAF. Additionally, with the application of TAF, over NT$366 million (approximately US$12 million) can be saved annually. TAF demonstrates cheaper medical costs and more favorable clinical QALYs than ETV. To balance health insurance benefits and cost effectiveness, TAF is the optimal treatment for CHB.
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.