Aggarwal Rakesh, Ghoshal U C, Naik S R
Department of Gastroenterology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow 226014, Uttar Pradesh, India
Natl Med J India. 2002 Nov-Dec;15(6):320-7.
Treatment with interferon-alpha (IFN) has been shown to be cost-effective in developed countries. However, cost-effectiveness In developing countries such as India has not been studied.
Using the Markov transitional probability model, we studied two cohorts of young patients (30 years of age) with chronic hepatitis B, one untreated and the other treated with interferon (IFN), 5 million units daily for 16 weeks, with evidence of viral replication and chronic hepatitis, but not cirrhosis, and were followed up over a 30-year period. Rates of disease progression, efficacy of IFN and quality of life associated with various disease states were estimated from the available literature. Direct costs were estimated using Indian prices of IFN and from the usual costs of medical treatment in India based on expert opinion. Unrelated mortality rates were modelled on age-specific death rates of the general population. The efficacy of IFN was judged In terms of extra life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, and marginal cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. Several sensitivity analyses, both undiscounted and with discounted analyses, were done.
At the end of the 30-year period, fewer patients in the IFN-treated group developed cirrhosis or decompensated cirrhosis, or were dead. The average life span of the treated cohort was 25.14 years, a gain of 0.6 years over the untreated cohort (24.54years). The QALY lived bythetwocohortswere 23.69 and 22.75 years, respectively, representing a gain of 0.94 years for the IFN-treated group. The cost Incurred by the IFN-treated group was Rs 300,000, and that for the untreated cohort was Rs 40 700, a substantial difference. Using the baseline estimates, undiscounted costs per year of life gained and per QALY gained were Rs 432,500 and Rs 276,900, respectively; these estimates are 20.5 and 13.1 times the per capita gross national income of the Indian population. Sensitivity analyses showed that changes in various parameters led to only minor changes in these estimates. Use of discounting led to an increase in marginal cost per life-year or QALY gained.
In developing countries with a low per capita Income, IFN therapy for chronic hepatitis B may not be cost-effective. A careful consideration of cost-effectiveness is therefore essential before Instituting IFN therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis B In such populations.
在发达国家,α干扰素(IFN)治疗已被证明具有成本效益。然而,在印度等发展中国家,其成本效益尚未得到研究。
我们使用马尔可夫转移概率模型,研究了两组慢性乙型肝炎年轻患者(30岁),一组未接受治疗,另一组接受干扰素(IFN)治疗,每日500万单位,共16周,这些患者有病毒复制和慢性肝炎证据,但无肝硬化,并随访30年。从现有文献中估计疾病进展率、IFN疗效以及与各种疾病状态相关的生活质量。直接成本根据印度IFN价格以及基于专家意见的印度常规医疗费用进行估计。非相关死亡率根据一般人群的年龄特异性死亡率进行建模。IFN的疗效通过获得的额外生命年和质量调整生命年(QALY)、边际成本效益和成本效用进行判断。进行了多项敏感性分析,包括未贴现分析和贴现分析。
在30年期末,IFN治疗组中发生肝硬化或失代偿性肝硬化或死亡的患者较少。治疗组的平均寿命为25.14年,比未治疗组(24.54年)增加了0.6年。两组的QALY分别为23.69年和22.75年,表明IFN治疗组增加了0.94年。IFN治疗组的费用为300,000卢比,未治疗组为40,700卢比,差异显著。使用基线估计,每获得一年生命和每获得一个QALY的未贴现成本分别为432,500卢比和276,900卢比;这些估计分别是印度人口人均国民总收入的20.5倍和13.1倍。敏感性分析表明,各种参数的变化仅导致这些估计值的微小变化。使用贴现导致每获得一年生命或一个QALY的边际成本增加。
在人均收入较低的发展中国家,慢性乙型肝炎的IFN治疗可能不具有成本效益。因此,在这类人群中对慢性乙型肝炎患者实施IFN治疗之前,必须仔细考虑成本效益。