Abstract

Background

Pharmacoeconomic studies have been less performed in Japan. The objective of this study was to clarify which neuraminidase inhibitor (NI; oseltamivir, zanamivir, laninamivir, and peramivir) is most cost-effective in an adult outpatient setting in Japan.

Objective

To clarify which neuraminidase inhibitor (NI; oseltamivir, zanamivir, laninamivir, and peramivir) is most cost-effective in an adult outpatient setting in Japan.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed from the healthcare payer’s perspective. A decision tree model was constructed with probabilities from relevant randomized controlled trials. Costs included medical costs and drug prices. Medical costs were obtained from the medical fee schedule table (2016 version). We also applied authorized medication costs. Outcomes of effectiveness were measured using EQ-5D-3L questionnaires for adult patients who had experienced influenza virus infections previously. Time horizon was 14 days in this study.

Results

Cost-effectiveness ratios for oseltamivir, zanamivir, laninamivir, and peramivir were 393 674 Yen/quality-adjusted life year (QALY; US$3883.41/QALY), 408 241 (US$4027.10), 407 980 (US$4024.53), and 444 264 (US$4382.45), respectively. The cost-effectiveness analysis base-case analysis revealed oseltamivir as the most cost-effective NI. Zanamivir was dominated. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for laninamivir and peramivir were 1 129 459 Yen/QALY (US$11 141.58/QALY) and 1 287 118 (US$12 696.81), respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that minimum ICERs for laninamivir based on “quality of life (QOL) values (95% confidence interval)” was −596 850 Yen/QALY (US−$5887.64/QALY) owing to high cost and less effective. Also, maximum ICER for peramivir based on“QOL values” was 14 717 518 Yen/QALY (US$145 181.32/QALY); a value more than the 5 000 000 Yen/QALY threshold.

Conclusions

The study results reveal oseltamivir as the most cost-effective NI for the treatment of influenza virus infection in an adult outpatient setting. Our findings may provide decision makers with scientific evidence for clinical and economic evaluation to achieve optimal therapeutic outcomes.