Economic Evaluations Of Hepatitis Research Articles

Economic Evaluation of Hepatitis C Treatment Extension to Acute Infection and Early-Stage Fibrosis Among Patients Who Inject Drugs in Developing Countries: A Case of China.

We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of (1) treating acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) vs. deferring treatment until the chronic phase and (2) treating all chronic patients vs. only those with advanced fibrosis; among Chinese genotype 1b treatment-naïve patients who injected drugs (PWID), using a combination Daclatasvir (DCV) plus Asunaprevir (ASV) regimen and a Peg-interferon (PegIFN)-based regimen, respectively. A decision-analytical model including the risk of HCV reinfection simulated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of three treatment timings, under the DCV+ASV and PegIFN regimen, respectively: Treating acute infection (“Treat at acute”), treating chronic patients of all fibrosis stages (“Treat at F0 (no fibrosis)”), treating only advanced-stage fibrosis patients (“Treat at F3 (numerous septa without cirrhosis)”). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to compare scenarios. “Treat at acute” compared with “Treat at F0” was cost-saving (cost: DCV+ASV regimen—US$14,486.975 vs. US$16,224.250; PegIFN-based regimen—US$19,734.794 vs. US$22,101.584) and more effective (QALY: DCV+ASV regimen—14.573 vs. 14.566; PegIFN-based regimen—14.148 vs. 14.116). Compared with “Treat at F3”; “Treat at F0” exhibited an ICER of US$3780.20/QALY and US$15,145.98/QALY under the DCV+ASV regimen and PegIFN-based regimen; respectively. Treatment of acute HCV infection was highly cost-effective and cost-saving compared with deferring treatment to the chronic stage; for both DCV+ASV and PegIFN-based regimens. Early treatment for chronic patients with DCV+ASV regimen was highly cost-effective.

Promoting hepatitis B elimination and laying emphasis on its economics evaluation

WHO has developed and issued global hepatitis B elimination program. Continuing hepatitis B immunization and conducting community based antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis B are the most important strategies for hepatitis B elimination. According to the estimation of related cost by WHO, the cost of antiviral therapy would be very high. Great achievement has been made in hepatitis B immunization in China, but the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B is high. Elimination of hepatitis B needs a large amount of public resource, posing serious challenge to public health policy making. Economics research on hepatitis B prevention and treatment can provide evidence and technical support for hepatitis B elimination. In this column "Economic evaluations of hepatitis B" , the related articles in this issue summarize the progress in this research field, which is inspiring and encouraging.

Economic evaluations of hepatitis B vaccination for developing countries

Economic evaluations, in particular cost–effectiveness, are important determinants for policy makers and stakeholders involved in decision-making for health interventions. Up until now, most evaluations of cost–effectiveness of hepatitis B vaccination have been performed in developed countries. Appropriate health–economic studies on this topic specifically targeted at the developing world are essential in order to justify adding another vaccine into the existing Expanded Program on Immunization in these countries. We present a systematic review of economic evaluations of vaccination against HBV for developing and less-developed countries. Vaccine price, the discount rate, incidence and prevalence of HBV infection were found to be major drivers of cost–effectiveness. Data accuracy and reliability were also major issues, with major potentials for improvement in studies of these countries. The choice between monovalent or combination vaccines (diphteria, tetanus and polio–hepatitis B) poses new challenges to cost–effectiveness analysis. It is concluded that for many developing countries implementation of universal immunization against HBV to reduce the level of endemicity of hepatitis B is an appropriate strategy, and probably cost effective in many settings. Given their limited financial resources, developing countries should properly plan how to achieve this. Further country-specific economic evaluations and related gathering of high-quality data must be conducted in developing countries in order to raise both public awareness of the effectiveness and economic attractiveness of universal immunization against HBV.

Economic evaluation of hepatitis B vaccination in low-income countries: using cost-effectiveness affordability curves

We sought to describe a method that explicitly considers both a health-care programmes cost-effectiveness and its affordability. For illustration, we apply the method to the programme to vaccinate infants against hepatitis B in the Gambia. We synthesized selected data and developed a computer-based model from the societal and payer perspectives to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine infant vaccination against hepatitis B in the Gambia compared with no vaccination. The primary outcome measure was cost per averted disability-adjusted life year (DALY), which was expressed in 2002 US dollars. We used Monte Carlo methods for uncertainty analysis to examine the affordability of the programme from the payers perspective, and we derived an affordability curve and cost-effectiveness affordability curves for the programme. In the Gambia, vaccinating infants against hepatitis B is highly cost-effective. Compared with offering no intervention, the vaccination programme would cost US$ 28 per DALY averted from the societal perspective or US$ 47 per DALY averted from the payers perspective. The programme also has the potential to be affordable, starting at a relatively low budget of US$ 160,000 per year. Combining the two dimensions of the outcome measure, the probability that vaccinating infants would be both cost-effective and affordable is 40% at an annual programme budget of US$ 182,000 (the estimated total programme cost from the payers perspective), given a threshold cost-effectiveness value of US$ 47 per DALY averted. In the face of uncertainties about both the health and economic consequences of a vaccine programme, as well as the availability and magnitude of resources needed to fund the programme, cost-effectiveness affordability curves can provide information to decision-makers about the probability that a programme will be both cost-effective and affordable: these are distinct but equally relevant considerations in resource-poor settings.

An Economic Evaluation of Hepatitis A Vaccination in Dutch Military Personnel

We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis A vaccination regimens using a mathematical simulation model. Passive immunization and two active vaccination strategies (with and without prior screening) were compared with "doing nothing." Hepatitis A antibodies were determined in 2,325 Dutch marines; other input data were retrieved from published and unpublished sources. The prevalence of hepatitis A antibody was 14%. Screening before vaccination was identified as appropriate at a prevalence > 20%. Passive immunization was the cheapest prevention for a single 6-month deployment per 10 years. The inactivated vaccine containing 1,440 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units without prior screening was identified as the best option for more frequent deployments. It was cost-saving with two or more missions per 10 years. A 5.3% hepatitis A attack rate validated the investment for this policy. Overall, immunization with inactivated hepatitis A vaccine without prior screening proved to be the optimum strategy for troops at regular risk.

Methodological quality of economic modelling studies. A case study with hepatitis B vaccines.

The notable increase in the quantity of economic evaluations in the last 2 decades has not been matched by good methodological standards. This problem is particularly evident in the field of economic evaluations of hepatitis B vaccines. The results of 2 systematic reviews conducted by us in 1993 and 1996 showed three problem areas. A sizeable minority of study reports failed to provide a clear study aim, showing a basic ignorance of the first rule of conducting scientific research. The basic epidemiological assumptions upon which the economic models were based showed variability which persisted even after stratification, raising the question of the accuracy of the epidemiological knowledge base of hepatitis B infection and its progression. Lastly, many of the studies showed weaknesses in basic methods of conducting and reporting economic evaluations. Examination of these problem areas led us to conclude that no conclusions about the efficiency of hepatitis B vaccines could be drawn from the available evidence. Addressing the problem of poor methodological standards concerns the whole research community. However, as a proportion of economic evaluations are published, one obvious means of exerting pressure to increase and maintain methodological standards is the editorial and peer review process. Editors of specialist and general medical journals should agree on and enforce common explicit guidelines for study conduct and reporting, following the example of the British Medical Journal.

Differences in the methodology and data of economic evaluations of a health programme. The case of hepatitis B vaccination programmes in Spain.

Economic evaluations of hepatitis B vaccination programmes in Spain or particular regions of Spain were identified and analysed, and their methodologies and data were compared. The results revealed important differences in methodology and the way in which different parameters, such as duration of immunity, costs and sources of cost data, were defined and measured. Some of these variations could be justified by the need to adapt studies to specific contexts, while others appeared arbitrary. Although it is understandable that there should be a substantial amount of heterogeneity between studies, greater efforts need to be made to reduce unnecessary variations in the way in which different parameters are measured. Increasing standardisation in methodology, which nevertheless takes into account inevitable variations due to changing circumstances and perspectives, will help to make economic evaluation a more attractive proposition for decision makers.