Robotin M, Patton Y, Kansil M, Penman A, George J. Cost of treating chronic hepatitis B: Comparison of current treatment guidelines.
World J Gastroenterol 2012;
18:6106-13. [PMID:
23155339 PMCID:
PMC3496887 DOI:
10.3748/wjg.v18.i42.6106]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2012] [Revised: 08/01/2012] [Accepted: 08/26/2012] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM: To compare program costs of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) screening and treatment using Australian and other published CHB treatment guidelines.
METHODS: Economic modeling demonstrated that in Australia a strategy of hepatocellular cancer (HCC) prevention in patients with CHB is more cost-effective than current standard care, or HCC screening. Based upon this model, we developed the B positive program to optimize CHB management of Australians born in countries of high CHB prevalence. We estimated CHB program costs using the B positive program algorithm and compared them to estimated costs of using the CHB treatment guidelines published by the Asian-Pacific, American and European Associations for the Study of Liver Disease (APASL, AASLD, EASL) and those suggested by an independent United States hepatology panel. We used a Markov model that factored in the costs of CHB screening and treatment, individualized by viral load and alanine aminotransferase levels, and calculated the relative costs of program components. Costs were discounted by 5% and calculated in Australian dollars (AUD).
RESULTS: Using the B positive algorithm, total program costs amount to 13 979 224 AUD, or 9634 AUD per patient. The least costly strategy is based upon using the AASLD guidelines, which would cost 34% less than our B positive algorithm. Using the EASL and the United States Expert Group guidelines would increase program costs by 46%. The largest expenditure relates to the cost of drug treatment (66.9% of total program costs). The contribution of CHB surveillance (20.2%) and HCC screening and surveillance (6.6%) is small - and together they represent only approximately a quarter of the total program costs.
CONCLUSION: The significant cost variations in CHB screening and treatment using different guidelines are relevant for clinicians and policy makers involved in designing population-based disease control programs.
Collapse