OBJECTIVES: Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) can lead to progressive liver disease, including cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and death. New options for long-term antiviral treatment decrease financial burden of CHB to the healthcare system and require physicians, payers and healthcare decision-makers to evaluate its economic value.To assess the economic value of treatment with Entecavir relative to treatment with Tenofovir in the Russian healthcare system. METHODS: We carried out the Perceived Value Assessment (PVA) of Entecavir (ETV) vs. Tenofovir (TFV) using multilayered Markovian model (disease state transition model: F0/F1 – F2/F3/F4 (Fibrosis) – >F4 (Advanced Fibrosis/Cirrhosis) – Decompensated Cirrhosis – Hepatocellular Carcinoma – Liver Transplant – Post Liver Transplant), developed by J.Wells from Monitor Group. In terms of PVA model we evaluated the comparative value provided to the health care system by Entecavir versus Tenofovir treatment (total of 30 years modeled) depending on duration of treatment and the follow-up period. The primary outcome measure of the model is the “Per pill Cost”. RESULTS: As patients progress into more advanced disease states their treatment becomes disproportionately more expensive: 420.7 USD for F0/F1, 1 935.2 USD for F2/F3/F4, 2 515.6 USD for >F4, 10 947.1 USD for Decompensated Cirrhosis, 4 549.9 USD for Hepatocellular Carcinoma, 10 092 USD for Liver Transplant, 49 613.6 USD for Post Liver Transplant. ETV’s price is only 0.11 greater than TFV’s price. Value gap between ETV and TFV for 5 years of therapy with 25 years of follow-up period was 4.8 USD per pill. It was determined by the long-term efficacy of ETV.   CONCLUSIONS: PVA Cost benefit simulation with 30 year time horizon and maximum treatment duration of 5 years demonstrated ETV’s economic value was 4.8 USD greater than that of TFV.