Back to Journals » ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research » Volume 4

Cost-effectiveness of entecavir versus adefovir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B in patients with decompensated cirrhosis from a third-party US payer perspective

Authors Tsai N, Jeffers, Cragin, Sorensen, Su, Rosenblatt, Tang, Hebden, Juday T

Received 14 March 2012

Accepted for publication 19 June 2012

Published 23 August 2012 Volume 2012:4 Pages 227—235


Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Naoky Tsai,1 Lennox Jeffers,2 Lael Cragin,3 Sonja Sorensen,3 Wenqing Su,3 Lisa Rosenblatt,4 Hong Tang,4 Tony Hebden,4 Timothy Juday4

1John A Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA; 2University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA; 3United BioSource Corporation, Bethesda, MD, USA; 4Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Plainsboro, NJ, USA

Background: Decompensated cirrhosis is a serious clinical complication of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) that places a large economic burden on the US health care system. Although entecavir has been shown to improve health outcomes in a cost-effective manner in mixed populations of CHB patients, the cost-effectiveness of entecavir has not been evaluated in CHB patients with decompensated cirrhosis.
Methods: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of entecavir versus adefovir, from a US payer perspective, in CHB patients with decompensated cirrhosis, using a health-state transition Markov model with four health states: hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), HCC-free survival, post-liver transplant, and death. The model considered a hypothetical patient population similar to that included in a randomized controlled trial in the target population (ETV-048): predominantly male (74%), Asian (54%), mean age 52 years, hepatic decompensation (Child–Pugh score ≥ seven), hepatitis B e antigen-positive or -negative, treatment-naïve or lamivudine-experienced, and no liver transplant history. Clinical inputs were based on cumulative safety results for ETV-048 and published literature. Costs were obtained from published literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum.
Results: For 1000 patients over a 3-year time horizon, predicted overall survival and HCC-free survival were longer with entecavir than with adefovir (2.35 versus 2.30 years and 2.11 versus 2.03 years, respectively). Predicted total health care costs were $889 lower with entecavir than with adefovir ($91,878 versus $92,768). For incremental cost/life-year gained and incremental cost/HCC-free-year gained, entecavir was less costly and more effective than adefovir. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be robust to plausible variations in health-state costs and discount rate.
Conclusion: This analysis suggests that entecavir improves survival outcomes in a cost-saving manner compared with adefovir in CHB patients with hepatic decompensation.

Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma, antiviral, survival, health economics, incremental net benefit

Creative Commons License © 2012 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.