Trends of acute hepatitis B hospitalizations, comorbidities, fatality rate, and costs associated with the hospitalization in Spain (2001-2006)

Treatment of severe, nonfulminant acute hepatitis B with lamivudine vs placebo: a prospective randomized double-blinded multicentre trial

Acute hepatitis B virus (aHBV) infection can lead to fulminant liver failure, which likely is prevented by early lamivudine therapy. Even nonfulminant but severe acute hepatitis B can lead to significant morbidity and impaired quality of life. Therefore, lamivudine was evaluated in patients with severe aHBV in a placebo-controlled trial. Patients with severe aHBV infection (ALT >10× ULN, bilirubin >85 μm, prothrombin time >50%) were prospectively treated with lamivudine 100 mg/day or with placebo within 8 days after the diagnosis. The primary end point was time to bilirubin <34.2 μm. Secondary end points were time to clear HBsAg and HBV-DNA, development of anti-HBs and normalization of ALT. Eighteen cases were randomized to lamivudine, 17 to placebo. 94% of patients were hospitalized. No individual progressed to hepatic failure; all but one patient achieved the primary end point. Due to smaller than expected patient numbers, all study end points did not become statistically significant between treatment arms. Median time end points [in days] were bilirubin <34.2 μm (26.5 vs 32), ALT normalization (35 vs 48) and HBsAg clearance (48 vs 67) referring to earlier recovery under lamivudine, in contrast to loss of HBV-DNA (62 vs 54) and development of anti-HBs (119 vs 109). In all but two patients (one in every group), HBsAg clearance was reached in the study. Adverse events occurred more frequently during lamivudine therapy, but did not reach statistical significance. Lamivudine may ameliorate severe aHBV infection, but limited patient numbers prevented definite conclusions.

Lamivudine compared with newer antivirals for prophylaxis of hepatitis B core antibody positive livers: a cost-effectiveness analysis

There is concern over the development of de novo hepatitis B in patients receiving liver transplants from hepatitis B surface antigen negative, hepatitis B core antibody positive donors. Current practice is to place such patients on indefinite lamivudine prophylaxis; however, there is a small risk of breakthrough infection and newer antivirals for hepatitis B are available. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of lamivudine compared with the newer agents, tenofovir and entecavir, in the prophylaxis setting using a Markov model. Three strategies were examined which consisted of either lamivudine or entecavir monoprophylaxis with tenofovir add-on therapy after breakthrough or tenofovir monoprophylaxis with emtricitabine add-on therapy after breakthrough. In the base case scenario, lamivudine was the most cost-effective option at a threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year and this remained robust despite parameter uncertainty. Tenofovir had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3 540 194.77 while other strategies were superior to entecavir therapy. Until drug costs decrease, lamivudine remains the most cost-effective option for hepatitis B prophylaxis in the liver transplant setting.

Hepatitis B screening and vaccination strategies for newly arrived adult Canadian immigrants and refugees: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Immigrants have increased mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma as compared to the host populations, primarily due to undetected chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Despite this, there are no systematic programs in most immigrant-receiving countries to screen for chronic HBV infection and immigrants are not routinely offered HBV vaccination outside of the universal childhood vaccination program.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A cost-effective analysis was performed to compare four HBV screening and vaccination strategies with no intervention in a hypothetical cohort of newly-arriving adult Canadian immigrants. The strategies considered were a) universal vaccination, b) screening for prior immunity and vaccination, c) chronic HBV screening and treatment, and d) combined screening for chronic HBV and prior immunity, treatment and vaccination. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective, using a Markov model. Seroprevalence estimates, annual transition probabilities, health-care costs (in Canadian dollars), and utilities were obtained from the published literature. Acute HBV infection, mortality from chronic HBV, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were modeled over the lifetime of the cohort of immigrants. Costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 3% per year. Screening for chronic HBV infection, and offering treatment if indicated, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention and was estimated to cost $40,880 per additional QALY gained, relative to no intervention. This strategy was most cost-effective for immigrants < 55 years of age and would cost < $50,000 per additional QALY gained for immigrants from areas where HBV seroprevalence is ≥ 3%. Strategies that included HBV vaccination were either prohibitively expensive or dominated by the chronic HBV screening strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for chronic HBV infection from regions where most Canadian immigrants originate, except for Latin America and the Middle East, was found to be reasonably cost-effective and has the potential to reduce HBV-associated morbidity and mortality.

Management of severe acute to fulminant hepatitis B: to treat or not to treat or when to treat?

Despite a decline in cases of acute hepatitis B and the low hepatitis B virus (HBV) chronicity rates in adults, still some patients progress to HBV-related fulminant liver failure. In this review, we discuss treatment options that may prevent the progression of severe acute hepatitis B to fulminant liver failure and death. In severe acute HBV with prolonged prothrombin time and increased bilirubin, interferon failed to be effective while antiviral treatment, particularly with lamivudine, appears to improve survival (mean survival almost 80%). Outcome without antiviral therapy has remained considerably poor, whereas there is no convincing evidence of amelioration of HBV-targeted immunity. Of note, most patients who died or required transplantation despite lamivudine therapy, were started on lamivudine at advanced stages compared with those survived. This suggests that prompt and timely antiviral therapy is crucial. Owing to the abovementioned results the design of randomized placebo-control trials in the setting of severe acute hepatitis B seems unethical. On the contrary, the design of multicentre double-blind randomized trials to compare the efficacy between lamivudine and entecavir or even tenofovir in acute severe HBV cases is ideally needed, but these studies appear to be very difficult to perform considering that these cases are not frequent and therefore, it is almost impossible to have two arms adequately numerous and homogenous for statistical evaluation. Thus, in the absence of solid evidence based data, the hepatologists could treat their patients with severe acute hepatitis B with lamivudine or the most potent antivirals entecavir or tenofovir.

[Pharmacological treatment of acute hepatitis B]

The incidence of acute B hepatitis is decreasing due to socioeconomical changes and the implementation of vaccination programs. Nevertheless it is potentially severe, causing approximately 30% of acute liver failures in Spain. Pharmacological treatment of acute B hepatitis has become a matter of issue over the last decade. This text offers a review of the published data and international guidelines. Most published studies have a low methodological quality and lamivudine was used as treatment in all of them. A survival improvement with prompt treatment has been shown in acute liver injury and probably in severe acute hepatitis (total bilirubin>10mg/dl and INR>1.5). International guidelines support treatment in these cases, but there is no consensus on the drug to use or the length of treatment.