Antiviral therapy for hepatitis B-related liver cancer prevention is more cost-effective than cancer screening

Journal of Hepatology 50 (2009) 990–998 www.elsevier.com/locate/jhep

Antiviral therapy for hepatitis B-related liver cancer prevention is more cost-effective than cancer screeningq Monica C. Robotin1,2,*, Melanie Kansil3, Kirsten Howard2, Jacob George4,5, Steven Tipper1, Gregory J. Dore6, Miriam Levy7, Andrew G. Penman8 1

The Cancer Council NSW, Research Strategy and Scientific Development Unit, 153 Dowling St, Woolloomooloo, NSW 2011, Sydney, Australia 2 University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Edward Ford Building A27, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia 3 Pacific Strategy Partners, Woolloomooloo, NSW, Australia 4 University of Sydney, School of Medicine, NSW, Australia 5 Storr Liver Unit, Westmead Hospital, Department of Medicine, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia 6 National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, University of New South Wales, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia 7 Liverpool Hospital, Department of Gastroenterology, NSW, Australia 8 The Cancer Council NSW, Unit of the CEO, Woolloomooloo, NSW, Sydney, Australia

See Editorial, pages 854–856

Background/Aims: In Australia, Asian-born populations are 6–12 times more likely to develop hepatocellular cancer (HCC) than Australian-born individuals. We therefore, modelled the consequences of different management strategies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in Asian-born adults aged P35 years. Methods: A Markov model compared (1) enhanced surveillance for HCC alone (HCC surveillance), or (2) enhanced HCC surveillance coupled with CHB treatment (HCC prevention) to the current practice, of low CHB treatment uptake. Patients were stratified and managed according to risk categories, based upon hepatitis B virus (HBV) viral load and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels. We measured costs, health outcomes [cases of HCC and deaths averted, qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) gained] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: HCC surveillance would cost on average AU$8479 per person, compared to AU$2632 with current clinical practice and result in a gain of 0.014 QALYs (AU$401,516/QALY gained). A HCC prevention strategy would cost on average AU$14,600 per person, result in 0.923 QALYs gained (AU$12,956 /QALY gained), reduce cases of cirrhosis by 52%, HCC diagnoses by 47% and CHB-related deaths by 56%, compared to current practice. Conclusions: HCC prevention appears to be a cost-effective public health strategy in at-risk populations in Australia and is preferable to HCC surveillance as a cancer control strategy. Ó 2009 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Hepatocellular cancer; Cost-effectiveness; Chronic hepatitis B; Disease surveillance

Received 25 August 2008; received in revised form 19 December 2008; accepted 29 December 2008; available online 15 February 2009 Associate Editor: J.M. Llovet q The authors declare that they do not have anything to disclose regarding funding from industries or conflict of interest with respect to this manuscript. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 (0)2 9334 1727; fax: +61 (0)2 9368 0711. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.C. Robotin). 0168-8278/$36.00 Ó 2009 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2008.12.022

M.C. Robotin et al. / Journal of Hepatology 50 (2009) 990–998

1. Background Although relatively uncommon in Australia (where it ranks 15th in males and 20th in females), hepatocellular cancer (HCC) incidence has been progressively rising, with age-standardised rates projected to increase by 27% in females and 43% in males and during the current decade [1]. In the state of New South Wales (NSW), HCC incidence rates have been rising faster than those of any other internal cancer [2], with people born in areas of high chronic hepatitis B (CHB) prevalence (in particular Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia and China), being 6–12 times more likely to have a liver cancer diagnosis than the non-indigenous Australian-born populations [3]. As hepatitis B is the most common cause of HCC in the Asian region [4,5], effective suppression of viral replication may be a promising avenue for cancer control in these populations [6–9], if questions around treatment effectiveness, cost and duration can be satisfactorily addressed. Currently, patients with HCC often present late, when options for treatment are limited and survival rates low [10]. Population-based screening for HCC in people with CHB is not practiced in Australia, so HCC cases are commonly diagnosed when symptomatic, or are incidental findings in patients investigated for other medical conditions. HCC screening is practiced by some clinical groups, but fewer than 20% of all HCCs are being detected by HCC surveillance [10]. The aim of this analysis was to compare the costs and health outcomes of two possible strategies of reducing HCC disease burden against current standards of prac-

At risk population Age≥35

tice (of clinical HCC diagnosis and limited HCC surveillance) in at-risk populations resident in Sydney, NSW. The two interventions assessed were (1) a program of HCC surveillance and (2) a strategy of CHB monitoring and treatment, coupled with HCC surveillance (termed HCC prevention) based upon categories of risk, as detailed below. The two different management strategies were chosen as possible options for modeling a public health intervention to reduce the number of new liver cancer cases in a population that is at significantly higher than average risk of HCC and end-stage liver disease. 2. Methods We used a Markov model of CHB progression to assess the clinical and economic consequences of the two different management strategies, as compared to current clinical practice, in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 Asian-born adults with CHB, aged 35 years at program entry; gender distribution was 60% males and 40% females. A health care funder perspective was taken and all future costs and health outcomes discounted at 5% per annum [11]. Patients were followed for 50 years and costs and health outcomes of the intervention and the comparator [cases of HCC averted, deaths averted and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained] calculated over the follow-up period.

2.1. Intervention The HCC surveillance and HCC prevention interventions were modelled as follows: Patients eligible for the surveillance programs (aged P35 years and HBsAg positive for >6 months) were stratified and managed according to risk categories, based upon HBV DNA and ALT levels (Fig. 1). Patients with a low HBV viral load (defined as <20,000 IU/ml for age <50 years and <2000 IU/ml for age P50 years) and ALT levels <1.5 X the upper limit of normal (ULN) (reference range 640 IU/L) received routine CHB monitoring, consisting of six-monthly primary

No HBV

Not recruited to program • GP to provide education on chronic hepatitis B

HBV DNA Low

Routine Hepatitis Care • GP-led six-monthly testing: HBsAg, HBeAg, HBV DNA, ALT

Tests via GP: HBsAg HBeAg HBV DNA ALT

991

Enhanced HCC Surveillance • GP-led routine hepatitis care (as above) • Six-monthly AFP and liver ultrasound

ALT Normal

HBV DNA High ≥20,000 IU if age <50 ≥2,000 IU if age ≥50

ALT High*

Specialist referral

*High ALT: ≥1.5 X upper limit of normal Fig. 1. Modelled screening and surveillance protocol.

HCC Prevention: •Enhanced HCC surveillance (as above), with specialist-led disease staging and treatment •Six-monthly testing: HBsAg, HBeAg, HBV DNA, ALT •Six-monthly AFP and liver ultrasound •Consider liver biopsy

992

M.C. Robotin et al. / Journal of Hepatology 50 (2009) 990–998

care follow-up and repeat testing for HBsAg, HBeAg, viral load and ALT (or routine care). Patients with a high HBV viral load (defined as P20,000 IU for age <50 years and P2000 IU/ml for age P50 years) and ALT <1.5 times ULN received the same CHB monitoring at primary care level, combined with HCC surveillance, consisting of biannual liver ultrasound and alpha fetoprotein (AFP) level measurements (or enhanced HCC surveillance). Patients with a high HBV viral load (see above) and elevated ALT levels (P1.5 ULN) were referred for specialist management, including routine CHB monitoring, HCC surveillance, biopsy assessment of liver damage and pharmacologic treatment of CHB (or HCC prevention).

2.2. Comparator The comparator was the current clinical practice, of limited treatment of CHB and some HCC surveillance, with most patients receiving neither. [12,13] Based on government medication prescription data, we

estimated that approximately 2% of CHB cases receive pharmacological treatment under current practice [13]. We assumed that people who received neither CHB treatment, nor HCC surveillance would progress through the disease process in a manner similar to the natural history of hepatitis B. The small proportion of patients receiving treatment in this group was modelled by taking into account a CHB treatment benefit.

2.3. Markov model A Markov model with an annual cycle length was used to model the progression of patients through a series of CHB health states: CHB without cirrhosis; CHB with cirrhosis; CHB with liver failure; CHB and HCC; spontaneous HBsAg clearance and death due to CHB related causes (liver failure or HCC), or death from other causes (see Fig. 2a and b). Management decisions in the intervention groups were guided by HBV viral load and liver function.

Fig. 2. (a) Disease states progression HCC surveillance. (b) Disease states progression HCC prevention.

M.C. Robotin et al. / Journal of Hepatology 50 (2009) 990–998 Treatment cut-offs regarding viral load were informed by clinical guidelines suggesting that threshold levels of HBV DNA should factor in whether patients are HBeAg positive (with treatment recommended for viral loads P105 copies/ml, or approximately 20,000 IU/ml) or HBeAg negative (with treatment suggested for VL P 104 copies/ml, or approximately 2000 IU/ml) [14–16]. The lower age limit (age P35 years) was informed by the first large study examining spontaneous HBeAg sero-conversion, which occurred at a median age of 34.5 years [17]. As a significant proportion of people aged P50 years are at risk of developing cirrhosis [15], they are also at an increased risk of hepatic decompensation and liver cancer. Hence, for this group, a lower viral load (VL > 2000 IU/ml) cut-off was used. The model structure and variables were informed by the available literature on the epidemiology and natural history of hepatitis-B related HCC [4,18–21] and previously published models of CHB and its treatment [22,23]. In accordance with current guidelines, we took into consideration both viral load, and ALT elevations for the initiation of therapy. Where published estimates were unavailable, expert estimates were used. All modelling was implemented in Microsoft Excel.

2.4. General assumptions In the HCC prevention program, all patients with high HBV viral loads and elevated ALT levels were assumed to receive pharmacological treatment. As general guidelines managing CHB generally avoid recommending particular drugs [16], we chose to model pegylatedinterferon and entecavir, based upon local patterns of use and taking into account the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines (NICE 2006), which addressed health economic issues related to treatment [16]. The modelling scenario did not include liver biopsy as part of the decision to treat or not to treat, which was made based upon ALT, viral load levels and age. We estimated that 30% of people eligible for treatment had interferon weekly for 12 months as first-line treatment and assumed that 30% of this group would achieve sustained viral suppression and have no subsequent treatment. The remainder received lifelong entecavir therapy (0.5 mg daily) from year 2 onwards. We estimated that 70% of people eligible for treatment received entecavir, with 20% assumed to seroconvert during the first year of treatment (and receiving no fur-

993

ther treatment); the remainder continued entecavir therapy indefinitely. Regular follow-up (every 6 months) was incorporated into the program, to allow for changes in clinical status, ensure optimal treatment monitoring and to detect HCC at an early stage. We assumed that under current practice, approximately 50% of people with CHB on medical treatment also receive some form of disease surveillance (with HBsAg, HBeAg, ALT and AFP testing and ultrasound examination). Based on published literature, we assumed that 89.5% of the intervention group (in whom HCC was detected by surveillance) were eligible for HCC resection, compared to 11.1% in the comparator group [24]. Patients not eligible for resection received chemoembolisation and /or radiofrequency ablation. In order to simplify modeling and to reflect the nature of the data used, we did not model a distinct survival rate specific for those who had resection, RFA, or other treatment. The modeled survival rates represent the rates of a blended group of patients, in which some receive HCC resection, some RFA, and others receive other (or no) treatment. Treatment effectiveness was modelled by a reduction in the probability of progression to a more advanced disease state, e.g. from CHB to cirrhosis and from cirrhosis to liver failure or HCC. Probabilities were based upon published data and expert estimates (see Table 1). The age-specific probability of death from causes other than CHB/ HCC was based upon Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimates [25].

2.5. Costs Costs were calculated from the perspective of a central health care funder and reported in 2006 Australian dollars (AU$). Health care utilisation related to CHB and its sequelae included: initial screening for CHB, diagnostic testing, physician and specialist consultations, six-monthly surveillance regimens and treatment of CHB and HCC. The model also included estimates of costs for program administration, recruitment and retention. Where available, unit costs of resources were based on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) [26], or Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS) [27], or on the National Hospital Cost Data Collection (NHCDC) for teaching hospitals [28]. Costs not available from these

Table 1 Epidemiological transition probabilities for people with chronic hepatitis B with current practice and in a HCC prevention program. Probability

Annual probability or relative risk

Data source (reference number)

CHB patients Autoimmune cure; current practice Autoimmune cure; prevention program Develop cirrhosis; current practice RR of cirrhosis with prevention program Develop HCC; current practice RR of HCC with prevention program

1.5% 2.0% 2.1% 0.1 0.2% 0.5

(46) (47) (48) Expert opinion (48) (49)

Cirrhosis patients Autoimmune cure; current practice Autoimmune cure; prevention program Develop liver failure; current practice RR of liver failure with prevention program Develop HCC; current practice RR of HCC with prevention program

1.5% 2.0% 5.6% 0.1 4.5% 0.5

(46) (47) (50) Expert opinion (46) (49)

Patients with liver failure CHB-related death; current practice RR of CHB-related death with prevention program

19.4% 1.0

(51) Expert opinion

Patients with HCC CHB-related death; current practice RR of CHB related death with prevention or surveillance program

30.7% 0.6

(52) (32)

Abbreviations: CHB, chronic hepatitis B; HCC, hepatocellular cancer; RR, relative risk.

994

M.C. Robotin et al. / Journal of Hepatology 50 (2009) 990–998

Table 2 Main management costs of the HCC surveillance and HCC prevention programs. Element

Cost modelled AU$

Source (reference number)

Biopsy (all costs) Chemoembolisation Radio frequency ablation Liver resection (all costs)

407.50 314.40 722.05 27,196.00

Interferon (180 mcg per week) Entecavir (0.5 mg per day)

17,552.99 4,611.60

MBS(22) Expert opinion MBS(22) NHCDC Teaching hospital DRG (24) PBS (53) PBS (53)

Abbreviations: MBS, medical benefits schedule; NHCDC, National Hospital Cost Data Collection; PBS, pharmaceutical benefits schedule; DRG, diagnostic related groups.

sources (HBV DNA testing, chemoembolisation and liver resection) were based upon data provided by one hospital (see Table 2 and Appendix 1). The costs of liver transplantation (where utilisation is capped by supply of donor livers) and palliative care treatment were not included, nor were indirect costs.

2.6. Outcomes The main health outcome of interest was quality adjusted life years (QALYs), a multidimensional health outcome that incorporates both survival and quality of life. Age-specific quality of life weights recommended by Shepherd were used for CHB related health states [29,30]. We assumed no decrement in quality of life for those who clear CHB. Other clinical outcomes included progression to cirrhosis, liver failure and HCC and CHB-related deaths from HCC or liver failure. We also calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), to quantify the additional costs that would be incurred in order to gain and additional unit of health outcome-in this case, QALYs. ICERs were calculated as follows: CostIntervention  CostComparator ICER ¼ EffectivenessIntervention  EffectivenessComparator

2.7. Sensitivity analysis We performed a series of one-way sensitivity analyses on a range of variables including: the proportion of patients with high viral load and high ALT, drug prices and main treatment effectiveness parameters, including the relative risk of progression from CHB to cirrhosis, from cirrhosis to liver failure and from liver failure to death. Additionally, two-way sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying simultaneously the relative risk of progression from CHB to cirrhosis and the relative risk of progression from cirrhosis to liver failure. Results of variables influencing the model are reported in Table 4.

3. Results Over the 50 years modelled, we estimated that the HCC surveillance strategy would cost on average AU$8479 per patient and result in 12.541 QALYs per patient, compared to AU$2632 and 12.527 QALYs, if managed according to current clinical practice. This represents a very small improvement in health outcomes (0.014 QALYs saved) and a less than 1% reduction in deaths from HCC or liver failure (from 0.338 to 0.336) over current practice; its ICER is of AU$401,516 per QALY gained, compared to current practice. A HCC prevention strategy would cost, on average, AU$14,600 and result in 13.450 QALYs (representing an additional 0.923 QALYs compared to current practice). This would reduce the proportion of people progressing to cirrhosis by 52% (from 0.419 to 0.200), the number of HCC diagnoses by 47% (from 0.186 to 0.098) and the number of deaths from HCC or liver failure by 56% (from 0.338 to 0.150). The HCC prevention strategy has an ICER of AU$12,956 per QALY gained, compared to current practice and AU$6733 per QALY gained, if compared to the HCC surveillance arm (see Table 3). More than half (58%) of the total program costs for HCC prevention are attributable to antiviral medications, costing AU$17,500 for interferon (where treatment is administered for one year) and AU$4600 per year for entecavir. With current practice, we estimated that over 50 years, approximately 42% of the cohort would develop cirrhosis and 19% HCC. 3.1. Sensitivity analysis The variables that showed the greatest influence on the ICER were: the proportion of the cohort where pharmacological treatment is indicated, the effectiveness of drug treatment in slowing liver damage and the cost of drug treatment, particularly entecavir (see Table 4). The proportion of patients with high viral load and high ALT and the cost of drugs jointly influence program costs. It is noteworthy that despite changes in these key variables, the ICER for the HCC prevention program remained within a favourable range.

Table 3 Average costs and outcomes per patient with chronic hepatitis B treated under current practice, HCC surveillance or HCC prevention algorithms. Program

Current practice HCC Surveillance HCC Prevention

% Patients with each clinical outcome

Total cost per patient

Total QALYs per patient

ICER

Cirrhosis

HCC

CHB/HCC related deaths

AU$ (present value)

Present value

AU$ per QALY gained

41.9 41.9 20.0

18.6 18.6 9.8

33.8 33.6 15.0

2,632 8,479 14,600

12.527 12.541 13.450

– 401,516 (vs. current practice) 12,956 (vs current practice) 6,733 (vs HCC Surveillance)

Abbreviations: CHB, chronic hepatitis B; HCC, hepatocellulare cancer; QALY, quality-adjusted life years.

M.C. Robotin et al. / Journal of Hepatology 50 (2009) 990–998

995

Table 4 Key variables from sensitivity analysis for a HCC prevention program (biannual HBsAg, HBeAg, HBV DNA, ALT and AFP, liver ultrasound and pharmacologic management of CHB by HCC risk level), compared to current practice. One way and two way sensitivity analyses shown. Variable

One-way sensitivity analyses Proportion of patients with high viral load who also have high ALT RR of progression from CHB to cirrhosis hepatocellular carcinoma RR of progression from cirrhosis to liver failure RR of progression from liver failure to death Price of entecavir Scenario tested

Two-way sensitivity analyses Base case Best case (most favourable combination) Worst case (least favourable combination) Intermediate effectiveness (1) Intermediate effectiveness (2)

Base case value

Range tested

Cost per QALY saved at range tested for the HCC prevention program, compared to current practice (in AU$)

Low value

High value

Low value

High value

50%

20%

90%

8,371

18,976

0.10

0.02

0.80

12,370

20,085

0.10

0.02

0.80

12,880

13,475

1.0 PBS Cost ($384.30/mo)

0.5 Reduction by 50%

1.0 Reduction by 5%

12,955 9,752

12,956 12,365

Values tested RR of progression from CHB to cirrhosis

RR of progression from cirrhosis to liver failure

0.10 0.02 0.80 0.02 0.80

0.10 0.02 0.80 0.80 0.02

Cost per QALY saved at range tested for the HCC prevention program, compared to current practice (in AU$)

12,343 29,692 12,547 19,120

Abbreviations: HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HBeAg, hepatitis B e antigen; HBV DNA, hepatitis B DNA level; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AFP, alpha fetoprotein; QALY, quality-adjusted life years; RR, relative risk.

4. Discussion Compared to current practice, a strategy of HCC surveillance in patients with CHB with minimal CHB treatment over the next 50 years would not reduce the number of cases of advanced liver disease, but would marginally reduce the number of deaths from HCC or liver failure. The program would have a high and unfavourable cost-effectiveness ratio of AU$401,516 per QALY gained, compared to current practice. In contrast, a HCC prevention strategy would significantly reduce the proportion progressing to cirrhosis (by 52%), the number of HCC diagnoses (by 47%) and the number of deaths from HCC or liver failure (by 56%). The strategy would save 0.924 QALYs per patient and have a favourable ICER (AU$12,956 per QALY gained), compared to current practice. The results of the HCC prevention strategy are driven primarily by the reduced likelihood of progression of liver damage in those with CHB. The HCC prevention strategy offers excellent value for money, when compared to a strategy of HCC surveillance, with an ICER of approximately AU$6733 per QALY gained. The HCC prevention strategy with treatment individualised according to HBV viral load and ALT level, has

a cost-effectiveness comparable to that of the existing population-based cancer screening programs in Australia, as breast cancer screening is estimated to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately AU$10,000 per QALY gained; cervical cancer around AU$45,000 per QALY gained and colorectal cancer about AU$20,000 per QALY gained [31,32]. While screening for HCC has been advocated as a means of improving survival, [18,33,34], both its effectiveness in reducing mortality from liver cancer [35,36] and its cost-effectiveness [37,38] are a matter of debate. Programs of twice-yearly surveillance of patients with cirrhosis for HCC using AFP and ultrasound [30,39– 42] found ICERs ranging from $US 26,689 per QALY gained [39] to $US 73,789 USD per QALY gained [40]. However, direct comparisons of cost-effectiveness are not appropriate, due to substantial differences in the patient populations modelled, the comparators used in the analyses, variations in health system structure, health care funding, and clinical practice, including the use of transplantation. The aetiology of cirrhosis in these studies was either hepatitis C, mixed or not specified; only one study specifically examined the cost-effectiveness of screening for HCC in patients with hepatitis B-related cirrhosis, followed by treatment, which included resection or

996

M.C. Robotin et al. / Journal of Hepatology 50 (2009) 990–998

transplantation [30]. Thompson-Coon and colleagues found that biannual surveillance with AFP and ultrasound in patients with cirrhosis due to HBV had an ICER of £26,800 per QALY gained compared to no surveillance [30,42]. The ICER of 6 monthly HCC surveillance with AFP and ultrasound was higher for cirrhosis of mixed aetiology (i.e. HBV, HCV and alcoholic liver disease) and lowest in HBV-related cirrhosis [30]. The combination of biannual ultrasound and AFP measurement had an ICER of £60,100 per QALY gained [30], with the cost of liver transplants and care post-transplant the variables with the greatest influence on ICER [30,42]. A modelled surveillance programs for HCC in Japan found an ICER of $US 29,900 per QALY gained, when assuming no clinical diagnosis of disease (i.e. earlier diagnosis), compared to $US 35,400 per QALY gained, assuming that 20% of HCC were detected clinically [41]. Our modelled costeffectiveness ratio is substantially higher than these reported results, primarily because previous analyses modelled costs and effects of HCC surveillance in patients with existing cirrhosis. In contrast, our analysis considered a population with CHB, of which fewer than 0.5% had cirrhosis at the start of the program. Therefore, the absolute benefit, in terms of detecting or preventing HCC and subsequent mortality in our modelled population would be substantially lower than in patients with existing cirrhosis. This lower benefit, coupled with similar surveillance costs means that our ICER is substantially higher than those reported for surveillance in patients with cirrhosis. Additionally there are differences in the comparisons made and in clinical practice between our analysis and previous studies, also likely to have influenced the ICER upwards. For example, previous analyses have compared surveillance strategies to no surveillance, whereas our analysis compared enhanced surveillance of CHB patients to ‘usual care’, in which approximately half the patients who received treatment also had some form of disease surveillance. Our analysis also did not consider transplantation, as there are so few performed in Australia each year. To our knowledge, this paper is one of the first to examine a strategy of screening and treating CHB with a view to pre-empt malignant transformation, as opposed to diagnosing and treating hepatitis B-related complications, or monitoring patients with existing cirrhosis. Our scenario included HBV viral load in the surveillance algorithm, not previously included in modelled analyses [22,23,43,44]. Hutton et al. examined the cost-effectiveness of combinations of HBV screening, treating and vaccination among Asian and Pacific Islander groups in the US; the strategy closest to the HCC prevention program in our analyses (‘screen and treat’) demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness of $US 36,088 [45]. Although not directly comparable, these results confirm that both a CHB screen and treat strategy, and a screen, treat and ring vaccinate strategy

(which had an ICER of $US 39,903 per QALY gained) are associated with favourable ICERs [45]. 4.1. Study limitations Some of our assumptions were based on imperfect data, as no consensus exists on the levels for ALT that would mandate treatment. This situation is made even more complex by the fact that ALT levels in patients with CHB may be due to co-existing overweight or obesity, present in >60% of Australian adults [46]. Additionally, the level of surveillance for CHB and HCC in atrisk communities is not well ascertained. However, a study such as this one allows clinicians and policy makers to engage with this topic and permits more detailed scenarios to be modelled in the future. We excluded transplantation from the model, as of the 152 adult liver transplants carried out in Australia and New Zealand in 2005, only 5% of were performed for hepatitis-B related causes [47], so they would have very little impact on the cost-effectiveness of the modelled program. An analysis of the SEER database in the US found that of nearly 3000 Medicare patients diagnosed with HCC, only 13% received potentially curative treatments, with 0.9% (27 patients) receiving a liver transplant. Attempting to quantify the extent of use of liver transplantation to treat HCC at a population level, another US study found that only one fifth of individuals diagnosed with small tumours (i.e. 6 5 cm) received a transplant [41].

5. Conclusions While CHB treatment is expensive, targeting pharmacological management to patients at highest risk (i.e. people with high HBV DNA and elevated ALT levels) provides more substantial gains in health outcomes and offers better value for money, compared to HCC surveillance in individuals with CHB infection. A focused program of screening and treatment of CHB among people born in Asian countries would address the public health challenge of offering a cost-effective treatment to populations most likely to benefit from them, where CHB infection rates are highest. Tailoring such a program to particular high-risk groups would raise medical practitioner awareness for the need to recommend HBV screening, ensure the provision of appropriate health care for those infected and allow improved measurements of the disease burden in these populations. Whether the same benefits are applicable to Caucasian-born populations remains unclear, as differences in the natural history of hepatitis B infection in Caucasian patients may lead to differences in liver-related morbidity and mortality [48].

M.C. Robotin et al. / Journal of Hepatology 50 (2009) 990–998

The burden of CHB and HCC in developed nations is likely to increase significantly in the future, due to the large population at risk, changing patterns of immigration and the long latency for progression from CHB to HCC. Therefore, devising cost-effective programs to reduce the burden of disease should be a key component of health planning and in this context, our study provides valuable information to help guide the clinical implementation of such a program.

997

Acknowledgement We thank Mr. Ian Clarke from Pacific Strategy Partners for his input into the economic model development. Pacific Strategy Partners is a private economic consulting firm engaged by The Cancer Council NSW to undertake part of the modelling work for this study. This study was funded by The Cancer Council New South Wales.

Appendix A. Additional model parameters Cost of resources used up for routine hepatitis care, CHB surveillance and HCC prevention. Element

Schedule

Unit cost AU$

Source

Routine care GP consultation (standard) Two tests: HBsAg & HBeAg Hepatitis B DNA (HBV DNA) Liver function test (ALT)

2 per year 1 1 1

32.10 29.45 120.00 9.75

MBS (22) MBS (22) Expert opinion MBS (22)

HCC surveillance GP consultation (standard) Two tests: HBsAg & HBeAg Hepatitis B DNA (HBV DNA) Liver function test (ALT) Alpha fetoprotein (AFP) test Ultrasound

2 per year 1 1 1 1 1

$32.10 29.45 120.00 9.75 24.75 111.30

MBS (22) MBS (22) Expert opinion MBS (22) MBS (22) MBS (22)

1 in first year 1 in first year; 2 per year all subsequent years 1 1 1 1 for high-risk patients 1 for high-risk patients 1 for high-risk patients 1 for high-risk patients

60.95 32.10

MBS (22) MBS (22)

40.80 120.00 9.75 113.86 24.75 111.30 407.50

MBS (22) Expert opinion MBS (22) MBS (22) MBS (22) MBS (22) MBS (22)

56.74

MBS (22)

10.60 314.40 722.05 27,196.00 17,552.99 4,611.60

MBS (22) Expert opinion MBS (22) NHCDC NHCDC (24) PBS (53) PBS (53)

HCC prevention GP consultation (long) GP consultation (standard) Three CHB tests: HBsAg, HBeAg + one other Hepatitis B DNA (HBV DNA) Liver function test (ALT) Specialist consultation (initial) Alpha fetoprotein (AFP) test Ultrasound procedure Biopsy (all costs) For treated patients Specialist consultation (subsequent) Nurse consultations Chemoembolisation (HCC not eligible for resection) Radio frequency ablation (HCC not eligible for resection) Liver resection (all costs) Interferon Entecavir

8 per year (interferon) or 4 per year (entecavir) 8 per year (interferon)

180 mcg/week 0.5 mg/day

Abbreviations: MBS, medical benefits schedule; PBS, pharmaceutical benefits schedule; NHCDC, National Hospital Cost Data Collection.

References [1] McDermid I. Cancer incidence projections, Australia 2002 to 2011. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), Australasian Association of Cancer Registries (AACR) and the National Cancer Strategies Group (NCSG); 2005. [2] Coates M, Tracey E. Cancer in New South Wales: incidence and mortality 1997. NSW Public Health Bull 2001;12:40–42. [3] Supramaniam R, O’Connell DL, Tracey E, Sitas F. Cancer incidence in New South Wales migrants 1991 to 2001. Sydney: The Cancer Council NSW; 2006.

[4] Bosch FX, Ribes J, Diaz M, Cleries R. Primary liver cancer: worldwide incidence and trends. Gastroenterology 2004;127: S5–S16. [5] Chan HL, Sung JJ. Hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatitis B virus. Semin Liver Dis 2006;26:153–161. [6] Fung SK, Lok AS. Treatment of chronic hepatitis B: who to treat, what to use, and for how long? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;2:839–848. [7] Hache C, Villeneuve JP. Lamivudine treatment in patients with chronic hepatitis B and cirrhosis. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2006;7:1835–1843.

998

M.C. Robotin et al. / Journal of Hepatology 50 (2009) 990–998

[8] Lai CJ, Terrault NA. Antiviral therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis B and cirrhosis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2004;33:629–654. [9] Lok AS, McMahon BJ. Chronic hepatitis B: update of recommendations. Hepatology 2004;39:857–861. [10] Gellert L, Jalaludin B, Levy M. Hepatocellular carcinoma in Sydney South West: late symptomatic presentation and poor outcome for most. Intern Med J 2007;37:516–522. [11] Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.1). editor: Commonwealth of Australia; Canberra, ACT; 2006. [12] Dore G, Wallace J, Locarnini S, Desmond P, Gane E, Crawford DH. Hepatitis B in Australia: responding to a diverse epidemic. Sydney: Australasian Society for HIV Medicine; 2006. Available from: http://www.ashm.org.au/uploads/Hep-B-in-Australia.pdf [13] National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research. HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis and sexually transmissible infections in Australia Annual Surveillance Report 2007. Sydney, NSW: National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research; 2007. [14] Keeffe EB, Dieterich DT, Han SH, Jacobson IM, Martin P, Schiff ER, et al. A treatment algorithm for the management of chronic hepatitis B virus infection in the United States: an update. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:936–962. [15] Liaw YF, Leung N, Guan R, Lau GK, Merican I, McCaughan G, et al. Asian–Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B: a 2005 update. Liver Int 2005;25:472–489. [16] Thomas HC. Best practice in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: a summary of the European Viral Hepatitis Educational Initiative (EVHEI). J Hepatol 2007;47:588–597. [17] Yuen MF, Yuan HJ, Hui CK, Wong DK, Wong WM, Chan AO, et al. A large population study of spontaneous HBeAg seroconversion and acute exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B infection: implications for antiviral therapy. Gut 2003;52:416–419. [18] Bolondi L. Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2003;39:1076–1084. [19] Chen CJ, Yang HI, Su J, Jen CL, You SL, Lu SN, et al. Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma across a biological gradient of serum hepatitis B virus DNA level. Jama 2006;295:65–73. [20] Sherman M. Pathogenesis and screening for hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Liver Dis 2004;8:419–443. [21] Villeneuve JP. The natural history of chronic hepatitis B virus infection. J Clin Virol 2005;34 (Suppl 1):S139–S142. [22] Kanwal F, Gralnek IM, Martin P, Dulai GS, Farid M, Spiegel BM. Treatment alternatives for chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:821–831. [23] Shepherd J, Jones J, Takeda A, Davidson P, Price A. Adefovir dipivoxil and pegylated interferon alfa-2a for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2006;10:1–183. [24] Yang B, Zhang B, Xu Y, Wang W, Shen Y, Zhang A, et al. Prospective study of early detection for primary liver cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1997;123:357–360. [25] Australian Bureau of Statistics. Statistics; 2008. Website: http:// www.abs.gov.au/ Accessed December 2, 2008. [26] Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Medicare Benefits Schedule book. In: Ageing CDoHa, editor. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia; 2007. [27] Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for approved pharmacists and medical practitioners. editor Commonwealth of Australia; 2007. Canberra, ACT. [28] Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. National Hospital Cost Data Collection. Cost Report Round 10 (2005–6) AR-DRG v5.0. editor. Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing; 2007. Canberra, ACT.

[29] Shepherd J, Jones J, Takeda A, Davidson P, Price A. Adefovir dipivoxil and pegylated interferon alfa-2a for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2006;10:1–183. [30] Thompson Coon J, Rogers G, Hewson P, Wright D, Anderson R, Cramp M, et al. Surveillance of cirrhosis for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2007;11:1–206. [31] Bowel cancer screening pilot monitoring and evaluation Steering Committee. Australia’s bowel cancer screening pilot and beyond. Final evaluation report Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing; 2005. [32] George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics 2001;19:1103–1109. [33] Nguyen MH, Keeffe EB. Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Gastroenterol 2002;35:S86–S91. [34] Yuen MF, Lai CL. Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma: survival benefit and cost-effectiveness. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1463–1467. [35] Wun YT, Dickinson JA. Alpha-fetoprotein and/or liver ultrasonography for liver cancer screening in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003: CD002799. [36] Zhang BH, Yang BH, Tang ZY. Randomized controlled trial of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2004;130:417–422. [37] Fung J, Gane E, Bullen C, Hornell J, McCall J. Improved survival with screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B: preliminary results of a national surveillance programme. Hepatology 2004;40:258A. [38] Gane E. Screening for chronic hepatitis B infection in New Zealand: unfinished business. NZ Med J 2005;118:U1344. [39] Arguedas MR, Chen VK, Eloubeidi MA, Fallon MB. Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis: a cost-utility analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:679–690. [40] Lin OS, Keeffe EB, Sanders GD, Owens DK. Cost-effectiveness of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis due to chronic hepatitis C. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;19:1159–1172. [41] Nouso K, Tanaka H, Uematsu S, Shiraga K, Okamoto R, Onishi H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the surveillance program of hepatocellular carcinoma depends on the medical circumstances. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;23:437–444. [42] Thompson Coon J, Rogers G, Hewson P, Wright D, Anderson R, Jackson S, et al. Surveillance of cirrhosis for hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-utility analysis. Br J Cancer 2008;98: 1166–1175. [43] Dusheiko GM, Roberts JA. Treatment of chronic type B and C hepatitis with interferon alfa: an economic appraisal. Hepatology 1995;22:1863–1873. [44] Wong JB, Koff RS, Tine F, Pauker SG. Cost-effectiveness of interferon-alpha 2b treatment for hepatitis B e antigen-positive chronic hepatitis B. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:664–675. [45] Hutton DW, Tan D, So SK, Brandeau ML. Cost-effectiveness of screening and vaccinating Asian and Pacific Islander adults for hepatitis B. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:460–469. [46] Cameron AJ, Welborn TA, Zimmet PZ, Dunstan DW, Owen N, Salmon J, et al. Overweight and obesity in Australia: the 1999– 2000 Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab). Med J Aust 2003;178:427–432. [47] Australian and New Zealand Liver Transplant Registry. Australian and New Zealand Liver Transplant Registry Report 2004. Brisbane: ANZLT; 2005. [48] Yuen MF. Revisiting the natural history of chronic hepatitis B: impact of new concepts on clinical management. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;22:973–976.