[Cost-effectiveness of community-based treatment of chronic hepatitis B in China]

Objective: Since eliminating hepatitis B in China would need considerable public health resources, the economics problem of the strategy of community-based antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) has become an important issue. The cost-effectiveness and affordability of the strategy were evaluated in this study. Methods: According to the advocacy on eliminating hepatitis B by WHO and the comprehensive protocol of community based prevention of major infectious diseases and the guideline for CHB prevention and treatment in China, the decision analytic Markov model was constructed with the parameters from national surveys or Meta-analysis. A cohort population aged 20-59 years was used as study subjects. The strategy of CHB antiviral treatment was compared with the strategies of hepatitis B vaccination and non-intervention, respectively. The costs and disability-adjusted life years (QALYs) of the strategies were calculated from the societal and payer perspectives. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) were calculated for the comparison of the strategies. One-way and probability sensitivity analysis were performed for uncertainty of the results. And the cost-effectiveness and affordability curves were introduced to estimate the budget impact on the strategies. Results: In the Chinese aged 20-59 years, the ICER of CHB antiviral treatment was 37 598.6 yuan (RMB) per QALYs and the ICERs were smaller in the low age groups, indicating that the antiviral treatment strategy is cost-effective and low age groups should be the priority population. The ICER of hepatitis B vaccination was -64 000.0 yuan (RMB) per QALYs, indicating that hepatitis B vaccination is cost saving. The CER of CHB antiviral treatment ranged from 731.8 to 1 813.3 yuan (RMB) per QALYs compared with hepatitis B vaccination, and the CER of CHB antiviral treatment was higher than that of hepatitis B vaccination in all age groups, indicating that hepatitis B vaccination would be more cost-effective than CHB antiviral treatment. The price of antiviral drug, entercavir, can influence the cost effectiveness of CHB antiviral treatment. If the price of entercavir declined half, CHB antiviral treatment would be cost-saving. The probability sensitivity analysis showed that people's willing to pay for CHB antiviral treatment should not be ignored, although the results of economics evaluation of CHB antiviral treatment were reliable. The results of affordability analysis indicated that the antiviral treatment strategy could not be implemented with the budget lower than 30 million yuan (RMB), the probability of implementing the strategy was 42.6% if the budget reaches 127 million yuan (RMB), and only when the budget reaches 269 million yuan (RMB), the goal of CHB antiviral treatment strategy can be fully realized. Conclusions: Although the strategy of CHB antiviral treatment as prevention in Chinese aged 20-59 years is cost-effective, it is not an appropriate public health measure due to the high cost. The cost effectiveness would be higher by conducting hepatitis B vaccination and then antiviral treatment in susceptible population.