Cost-effectiveness of active-passive prophylaxis and antiviral prophylaxis during pregnancy to prevent perinatal hepatitis B virus infection

摘要

In an era of antiviral treatment, reexamination of the cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent perinatal hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmission in the United States is needed. We used a decision tree and Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the current U.S. strategy and two alternatives: (1) Universal hepatitis B vaccination (HepB) strategy: No pregnant women are screened for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). All infants receive HepB before hospital discharge; no infants receive hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG). (2) Current strategy: All pregnant women are screened for HBsAg. Infants of HBsAg-positive women receive HepB and HBIG 12 hours of birth. All other infants receive HepB before hospital discharge. (3) Antiviral prophylaxis strategy: All pregnant women are screened for HBsAg. HBsAg-positive women have HBV-DNA load measured. Antiviral prophylaxis is offered for 4 months starting in the third trimester to women with DNA load 10(6) copies/mL. HepB and HBIG are administered at birth to infants of HBsAg-positive women, and HepB is administered before hospital discharge to infants of HBsAg-negative women. Effects were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Compared to the universal HepB strategy, the current strategy prevented 1,006 chronic HBV infections and saved 13,600 QALYs (ICER: $6,957/QALY saved). Antiviral prophylaxis dominated the current strategy, preventing an additional 489 chronic infections, and saving 800 QALYs and $2.8 million. The results remained robust over a wide range of assumptions. Conclusion: The current U.S. strategy for preventing perinatal HBV remains cost-effective compared to the universal HepB strategy. An antiviral prophylaxis strategy was cost saving compared to the current strategy and should be considered to continue to decrease the burden of perinatal hepatitis B in the United States. (Hepatology 2016;63:1471-1480)