INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, guidelines for the management of HBV infection in Italy, recommend using vaccines but the screening test among non-vaccinated people is useful to detect people that have a clear presence of the virus without symptoms of the disease. Thanks to the screening test, people infected with HBV are administered traditional therapy in order to stop the progression to cirrhosis, liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). These diseases cause the decrease of Qol and cause a high consumption of resources for the health system. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a strategy (test strategy) involving the administration of the screening test to patients at risk and the treatment of the infected according to the protocol therapy. This programme is compared with a strategy (no test strategy) which does not include a screening and treats patients affected by cirrhosis or HCC. METHODS: We created a Markov model following the natural history of the disease and considering the antigen HBeAg to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the test strategy. The analysis was carried out considering a third-party payer perspective. The time horizon considered was 40 cycles of one year. Patients who resulted positive to the test were administered either interferon treatment; or lamivudine or adefovir or entecavir or tenofovir, consistently with the Italian guidelines. Treatments were administered to patients included in the no-test arm after cirrhosis symptoms or HCC. RESULTS: The results of the base case analysis show that patients following the test strategy compared with patients of the no-test approach cost €17,179/QALY. The Monte Carlo simulation based on a probabilistic sensitivity analysis points out that in 95% of the scenarios assumed, the cost per QALY would be under a hypothetical threshold of €40,000 which is the amount that international guidelines for decision makers are likely to consider sustainable for a health system. In conclusion, anti-hbv test to all high-risk categories should be highly recommended.
INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, guidelines for the management of HBV infection in Italy, recommend using vaccines but the screening test among non-vaccinated people is useful to detect people that have a clear presence of the virus without symptoms of the disease. Thanks to the screening test, people infected with HBV are administered traditional therapy in order to stop the progression to cirrhosis, liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). These diseases cause the decrease of Qol and cause a high consumption of resources for the health system. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a strategy (test strategy) involving the administration of the screening test to patients at risk and the treatment of the infected according to the protocol therapy. This programme is compared with a strategy (no test strategy) which does not include a screening and treats patients affected by cirrhosis or HCC. METHODS: We created a Markov model following the natural history of the disease and considering the antigen HBeAg to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the test strategy. The analysis was carried out considering a third-party payer perspective. The time horizon considered was 40 cycles of one year. Patients who resulted positive to the test were administered either interferon treatment; or lamivudine or adefovir or entecavir or tenofovir, consistently with the Italian guidelines. Treatments were administered to patients included in the no-test arm after cirrhosis symptoms or HCC. RESULTS: The results of the base case analysis show that patients following the test strategy compared with patients of the no-test approach cost €17,179/QALY. The Monte Carlo simulation based on a probabilistic sensitivity analysis points out that in 95% of the scenarios assumed, the cost per QALY would be under a hypothetical threshold of €40,000 which is the amount that international guidelines for decision makers are likely to consider sustainable for a health system. In conclusion, anti-hbv test to all high-risk categories should be highly recommended.
Authors: John E Tavis; Xiaohong Cheng; Yuan Hu; Michael Totten; Feng Cao; Eleftherios Michailidis; Rajeev Aurora; Marvin J Meyers; E Jon Jacobsen; Michael A Parniak; Stefan G Sarafianos Journal: PLoS Pathog Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 6.823
Authors: Susan J M Hahné; Irene K Veldhuijzen; Lucas Wiessing; Tek-Ang Lim; Mika Salminen; Marita van de Laar Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Daniel T Myran; Rachael Morton; Beverly-Ann Biggs; Irene Veldhuijzen; Francesco Castelli; Anh Tran; Lukas P Staub; Eric Agbata; Prinon Rahman; Manish Pareek; Teymur Noori; Kevin Pottie Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 3.390