Avaliação econômica das abordagens terapêuticas para o tratamento das hepatites B e C: comparação das diretrizes nacionais e internacionais / Economic evaluation of therapeutic approaches for the treatment of hepatitis B and C: comparison of national and international guidelines

As hepatites virais B e C, nas últimas décadas, emergiram e se mantiveram em evidência como um grande problema de saúde pública. O desenvolvimento e a disseminação do uso de medicamentos antivirais vêm contribuindo para a diminuição da carga dessas infecções em nível individual e coletivo. Especialmente na última década, disponibilizaram-se tecnologias mais seguras e eficazes para o diagnóstico precoce e para o tratamento. No intuito de assegurar o uso racional desses insumos, muitos países elaboraram recomendações que incluem, os critérios de inclusão e exclusão para o tratamento e o estabelecimento do curso terapêutico. As recomendações nacionais e internacionais para o tratamento das hepatites B e C divergem em diversos aspectos, principalmente no que se refere aos fármacos eleitos como primeira linha de tratamento e ao público prioritário. No caso da hepatite C, o Ministério da Saúde brasileiro indica a terapia tripla somente para portadores de doença hepática avançada. O consenso internacional, representado pela OMS, pela AALSD e pelo NICE, assume direção oposta, ao propor como público prioritário, indivíduos com hepatite leve e moderada. As recomendações nacionais e internacionais para o tratamento da hepatite B se assemelham em grande medida, mas são conflitantes no que diz respeito aos medicamentos eleitos como primeira escolha. Com base nas divergências das diretrizes terapêuticas nacionais e internacionais, esse estudo objetivou confrontar as óticas nacionais e internacionais e avaliar as estratégias mais custo-efetivas para o tratamento contra o vírus da hepatite B (VHB) e o vírus da hepatite C (VHC) sob a perspectiva do SUS. Os resultados do modelo econômico construído indicam que o uso precoce e universal dos inibidores de protease (IPs) emerge como a conduta mais racional para o tratamento da hepatite C crônica na atualidade. Essa abordagem resulta em melhores desfechos clínicos e econômicos se comparada à terapia dual (peguinterferon + ribavirina) e ao uso de IPs no caso de refratariedade ao tratamento prévio e especialmente quando empregada restritamente aos casos de fibrose avançada, tal como recomendado pelas diretrizes nacionais. Na avaliação do custo-efetividade das recomendações terapêuticas para o tratamento contra o VHB em indivíduos HBeAg não reagentes, o uso do tenofovir se mostrou a estratégia mais eficiente. A terapia com tenofovir constitui a primeira linha de tratamento nas diretrizes nacionais atuais e foi a que apresentou maior efetividade associada ao menor custo global, contrariando as proposições de protocolos internacionais e de algumas publicações anteriores. Em síntese, a análise farmacoeconômica comparativa entre as diretrizes nacionais e internacionais para o tratamento das hepatites crônicas revela que a conduta de tratamento contra o VHB adotada no Brasil é adequada pelos pontos de vista clínico e econômico. Em contrapartida, as mesmas conclusões não se aplicam ao caso do tratamento da infecção do genótipo 1 da hepatite C, que, da forma como está sendo conduzido, penaliza uma parcela significativa dos indivíduos portadores, por oferecer o que há de mais avançado em tratamento antiviral exclusivamente aos pacientes com menores chances de resposta, maior risco de desenvolvimento de intolerância medicamentosa e já em estágio terminal da doença hepática

In the last decades, viral hepatitis B and C have emerged and have remained in evidence as a major public health problem. The development and dissemination of the use of antiviral drugs has contributed to reduce the burden of these infections at the individual and collective levels. Especially in the last decade, safer and more effective technologies have been made available for early diagnosis and treatment. In order to ensure the rational use of antivirals, many countries have developed recommendations that adds the inclusion and exclusion criterias for the treatment and establishment of the therapeutic course. National and international recommendations for the treatment of hepatitis B and C differ in several respects, especially for the drugs chosen as the first treatment line and for the priority public. In the case of hepatitis C, the Brazilian Ministry of Health indicates triple therapy only for patients with advanced liver disease. The international consensus, represented by WHO, AALSD and NICE, assumes the opposite direction proposing as a priority public, individuals with mild and moderate hepatitis. National and international recommendations for the treatment of Hepatitis B closely resemble each other but are in conflict with regard to medicines chosen as the first choice. Based on divergences among national and international therapeutic guidelines, this study aimed to compare national and international perspectives and to evaluate the most cost-effective strategies for the treatment of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the SUS perspective. The results of the constructed economic model indicate that the early and universal use of protease inhibitors (PIs) emerges as the most rational conduct for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C today. This approach results in better clinical and economic outcomes compared to dual therapy (peginterferon + ribavirin) and the use of PIs in the case of refractoriness to previous treatment and especially when used strictly to cases of advanced fibrosis, as recommended by the national guidelines. In cost-effectiveness evaluation of the therapeutic recommendations for the treatment against HBV in non-reactive HBeAg individuals, the use of tenofovir was the most efficient strategy. In current national guidelines, tenofovir is recommended as the first-line treatment and was the one with the highest effectiveness associated with the lowest overall cost, contrary to the proposals of international protocols and some previous publications. In summary, the comparative pharmacoeconomic analysis between the national and international guidelines for the treatment of chronic hepatitis reveals that the treatment approach against HBV adopted in Brazil is adequate from the clinical and economic points of view. In contrast, the same conclusions do not apply to the treatment of hepatitis C genotype 1 infection, which, as it is being conducted, penalizes a significant portion of carriers because it offers the most advanced antiviral treatment exclusively to patients with lower chances of response, higher risk of developing drug intolerance and already in the terminal stage of liver disease

Hepatitis B immunization: cost calculation in a community-based study in India.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: In India, approximately 65% of mothers deliver at home, and a community-based study evaluating the cost of vaccinating newborns with the first dose of hepatitis B vaccine within 48 hours has not been undertaken previously. This policy planning study was done to evaluate the costs of such immunization in India. METHODS: All mothers delivering in the study area (population 65,000) over a 1-year period were tested for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg; ELISA), and babies of positive mothers were vaccinated starting at birth. The cost of such selective vaccination was calculated. The cost of nursing time required for universal immunization was calculated from the data on nursing time required for vaccination in the selective vaccination program. The national cost of universal immunization without testing was calculated as well as cost-benefit and cost-utility in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Sensitivity testing considering economies of scale was also factored in. RESULTS: 1100 mothers delivered during the study period. 252 were primiparous. Nationwide universal vaccination would cost Rs 48,000 per QALY saved, which was double the per capita GNP of the country; discounted at 3% the cost was Rs 260,000. CONCLUSIONS: Universal immunization vaccination with hepatitis B vaccine is not cost-beneficial in India, since cost of every life-year gained with it will exceed India's per capita GNP.

Hepatitis B vaccination: myths and controversies.

Hepatitis B has attracted a lot of attention in recent times. It has been suggested that it is a widely prevalent disease and an important cause of morbidity and mortality in our country. A dispassionate analysis of available data suggests that the prevalence of disease may be much less than believed hitherto, and the morbidity and mortality due to the disease may have been overestimated. Vertical transmission from mother to child at the time of delivery may be an important contributor to overall carrier rates in the community which warrants that the first dose of vaccine be administered within 24-48 hours of birth to all newborns. In view of this, the suggestion that Hepatitis B vaccine be incorporated in the National UIP also has many logistical difficulties, apart from a doubtful cost benefit ratio. This may therefore be not warranted at present. Also it would appear that the routine use of Hepatitis B vaccine in older individuals cannot be justified on epidemiological grounds in India and the widespread practice of holding camps for administering Hepatitis B vaccine to school children and other older citizens need to be re-examined.

Otimizaçäo do emprego de recursos econômicos para vacinaçäo contra hepatite B em profissionais da área de saúde / Application optimizing of economic resources to be allocated for hepatitis B vaccination programs involvinh health care workers

In order to optimize the employment of financial resources to be allocated for hepatitis B vaccination programs involving health care workers, two different aspects were studied: the need of a pre-vaccination screening and the efficacy of low-doses schedules of HBV vaccine by the intradermal (ID) route. The economical analysis (a cost-minimization study) showed that when the prevalence of immune individuals is higher than 11 per cent it is more cost-effective to perform pre-vaccination screening. This situation was observed in the employees group. For students and doctors vaccination without screening was the best approach. Regarding the schedules, 3 doses of HBV vaccine by the intramuscular (IM) route (group A) were compared to first dose by the ID route and second and third doses by the IM route (group B) and to first and second doses by the ID route and the last dose by the IM route (group C). After the third dose, soroconversion rates in groups A and B (92 per cent and 93 per cent, respectively) and geometric mean titers of antiHBs (1278 UI/L and 789.6 UI/L) were similar, and both were different from group A (p < 0.05), showing that alternative vaccination schedules may be cost-effective.