Cost-effectiveness analysis of onradivir and oseltamivir for the treatment of influenza A in adults
- VernacularTitle:昂拉地韦与奥司他韦治疗成人甲型流感的成本-效果分析
- Author:
Yongzan ZHANG
1
;
Shengnan GAO
2
;
Xianying WANG
1
;
Guoqiang LIU
1
Author Information
1. Dept. of Pharmacy，Hebei Medical University Third Hospital，Shijiazhuang 050051，China
2. Hebei Society for Integrated Drug and Health Technology Assessment，Shijiazhuang 050051，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
nradivir;
oseltamivir;
influenza A;
cost-effectiveness analysis;
decision tree model
- From:
China Pharmacy
2026;37(12):1579-1583
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of onradivir versus oseltamivir in the treatment of influenza A in adults from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS Based on data from a phase Ⅲ clinical trial （NCT04683406）， a decision tree model was constructed to simulate the efficacy and cost of using onradivir versus oseltamivir in treating adult patients with influenza A， with a cycle length of 5 days and a simulation period of 29 days. The two drug prices correspond to the median listing prices published by Yaozhi Network and the national negotiated prices. Patient characteristics and influenza utility values were derived from the phase Ⅲ clinical trial of onradivir， and medical costs and complication utility values were sourced from published literature. Quality-adjusted life year（QALY） was used as an effect indicator， and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio（ICER） of onradivir versus oseltamivir was calculated， using China’s per capita disposable income in 2025 （43 377 yuan） as the willingness-to-pay （WTP） threshold to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the results. One-way and probabilistic analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the results. RESULTS Compared with the oseltamivir regimen， the onradivir regimen yielded an incremental 0.000 67 QALY with direct medical cost savings of 12.41 yuan， thus being a dominant strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the utility values on day 15 of oseltamivir treatment， the incidence of influenza pneumonia in the oseltamivir group and the costs of the two drugs significantly affected the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that at the pre-specified WTP threshold， onradivir had a 70.6% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS At a WTP threshold set at the 2025 per capita disposable income of China， compared with oseltamivir， onradivir can improve the health outcomes of adult patients with influenza A and reduce costs， demonstrating greater cost-effectiveness.
