Yock Young Dan1, John B Wong2, Saeed S Hamid3, Kwang-Hyub Han4, Ji Dong Jia5, Chun-Jen Liu6, Teerha Piratvisuth7, Anna S F Lok8, Seng Gee Lim9. 1. Department of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. mdcdyy@nus.edu.sg. 2. Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 5. Liver Research Center, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 6. Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. 7. Department of Medicine, NKC Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 9. Department of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) convened an international working party to develop a consensus cost-effectiveness model for treatment of Hepatitis B in Asia Pacific countries in March 2010. METHODS: The working party consisted of expert hepatologists, virologists and epidemiologists from 11 representative countries in the Asia Pacific region. Meetings were conducted at the 20th APASL Annual Meeting in 2010 to determine consensus estimates for modeling and at the 21st and 22nd APASL meetings in 2011 and 2012, respectively to review and approve the models. RESULTS: The consensus cost-effectiveness model used Singapore as base case analysis and was validated using actual data from the Singapore Cancer, Diseases and Death Registries. Simulation for Singapore, China, Thailand, Pakistan, Taiwan and Korea were performed. Antivirals with high resistance barriers like entecavir and tenofovir had the highest retail cost but were the most cost-effective therapy in developed countries such as Singapore, Taiwan and Korea while generic tenofovir was most cost effective in Thailand and Pakistan. The cost effectiveness of different treatment strategies varied significantly between countries and was affected by medication cost, economic affordability, access to liver transplantation and the prevailing health of the general population. CONCLUSION: Choosing treatment strategies for hepatitis B based on low retail drug cost can be misleading because more expensive drugs may be more cost effective when considering long-term health outcomes and costs. Cost-effectiveness data should be individualized to countries based on their unique socio-economic conditions. Governmental policies which subsidize more costly drugs that have lower risk of drug resistance can benefit more patients.
PURPOSE: The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) convened an international working party to develop a consensus cost-effectiveness model for treatment of Hepatitis B in Asia Pacific countries in March 2010. METHODS: The working party consisted of expert hepatologists, virologists and epidemiologists from 11 representative countries in the Asia Pacific region. Meetings were conducted at the 20th APASL Annual Meeting in 2010 to determine consensus estimates for modeling and at the 21st and 22nd APASL meetings in 2011 and 2012, respectively to review and approve the models. RESULTS: The consensus cost-effectiveness model used Singapore as base case analysis and was validated using actual data from the Singapore Cancer, Diseases and Death Registries. Simulation for Singapore, China, Thailand, Pakistan, Taiwan and Korea were performed. Antivirals with high resistance barriers like entecavir and tenofovir had the highest retail cost but were the most cost-effective therapy in developed countries such as Singapore, Taiwan and Korea while generic tenofovir was most cost effective in Thailand and Pakistan. The cost effectiveness of different treatment strategies varied significantly between countries and was affected by medication cost, economic affordability, access to liver transplantation and the prevailing health of the general population. CONCLUSION: Choosing treatment strategies for hepatitis B based on low retail drug cost can be misleading because more expensive drugs may be more cost effective when considering long-term health outcomes and costs. Cost-effectiveness data should be individualized to countries based on their unique socio-economic conditions. Governmental policies which subsidize more costly drugs that have lower risk of drug resistance can benefit more patients.
Authors: Joseph J Y Sung; Deepak Amarapurkar; Henry L Y Chan; Jun Cheng; Jia-Horng Kao; Kwang-Hyub Han; Teerha Piratvisuth Journal: Antivir Ther Date: 2010
Authors: Wei Wei Hong; Li Wei Ang; Jeffrey L Cutter; Lyn James; Suok Kai Chew; Kee Tai Goh Journal: Ann Acad Med Singapore Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.473
Authors: Fasiha Kanwal; Ian M Gralnek; Paul Martin; Gareth S Dulai; Mary Farid; Brennan M R Spiegel Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-05-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Hyun Woong Lee; Heon Ju Lee; Jae Seok Hwang; Joo Hyun Sohn; Jae Young Jang; Ki Jun Han; Jun Yong Park; Do Young Kim; Sang Hoon Ahn; Yong Han Paik; Chun Kyon Lee; Kwan Sik Lee; Chae Yoon Chon; Kwang-Hyub Han Journal: Hepatology Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Emmet B Keeffe; Stefan Zeuzem; Raymond S Koff; Douglas T Dieterich; Rafael Esteban-Mur; Edward J Gane; Ira M Jacobson; Seng G Lim; Nikolai Naoumov; Patrick Marcellin; Teerha Piratvisuth; Fabien Zoulim Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2007-07-13 Impact factor: 11.382