Cost–Utility Analysis of Tenofovir Alafenamide and Entecavir in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients: A Markov Decision Model.

Simple Summary: This study conducted a cost–utility analysis comparing tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and entecavir (ETV) as first-line treatments for chronic hepatitis B. The TAF group exhibited an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of −NT$23,878 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) compared to the ETV group. Additionally, TAF demonstrated superior cost effectiveness, suggesting potential annual savings of over NT$500 million (approximately US$18 million). These findings support the consideration for expanding health insurance coverage for TAF in hepatitis B treatment. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]