Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Cost-effective analysis of hepatitis A prevention in Ireland.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2000 Jan; 95(1):223-6.AJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the most cost-effective prevention strategy against hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection for healthcare workers and the general population at risk in Ireland.

METHODS

Four prevention strategies were compared: active immunization with Havrix Monodose (1440E.U); screening for anti-HAV antibody and then vaccinating; passive immunization; screening for anti-HAV antibody and then passive immunization. The cost-effective ratio was calculated for each prevention strategy. Threshold analysis, sensitivity analysis, and model extension to include indirect cost from work days lost and secondary attack rates through horizontal transmission were also derived.

RESULTS

The medical costs were lowest and the infection rate highest when no preventive action was taken. Vaccination was most cost effective when the prevalence of immunity was 45% or less, reducing the infection rate by 98% when compared to nonprevention. Screening before vaccination was most cost effective when the prevalence of immunity was greater than 45%. Passive immunization and screening before passive immunization were not comparable to the other strategies in cost effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost-effective ratio for vaccination was dependent on vaccine price, incidence of HAV, and prevalence of immunity in the target group. Extending the model to include indirect costs further increased the cost effectiveness of vaccination.

CONCLUSION

The best cost-effective strategy relates to target group immunity. Where HAV immunity is 45% or less, vaccination is the strategy of choice and when immunity is greater than 45%, then screening followed by vaccination should be used. This study can be used to provide a framework within which choices can be made to achieve better health for less cost.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

10638588

Citation

Rajan, E, et al. "Cost-effective Analysis of Hepatitis a Prevention in Ireland." The American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 95, no. 1, 2000, pp. 223-6.
Rajan E, Shattock AG, Fielding JF. Cost-effective analysis of hepatitis A prevention in Ireland. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95(1):223-6.
Rajan, E., Shattock, A. G., & Fielding, J. F. (2000). Cost-effective analysis of hepatitis A prevention in Ireland. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 95(1), 223-6.
Rajan E, Shattock AG, Fielding JF. Cost-effective Analysis of Hepatitis a Prevention in Ireland. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95(1):223-6. PubMed PMID: 10638588.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Cost-effective analysis of hepatitis A prevention in Ireland. AU - Rajan,E, AU - Shattock,A G, AU - Fielding,J F, PY - 2000/1/19/pubmed PY - 2000/1/19/medline PY - 2000/1/19/entrez SP - 223 EP - 6 JF - The American journal of gastroenterology JO - Am J Gastroenterol VL - 95 IS - 1 N2 - OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the most cost-effective prevention strategy against hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection for healthcare workers and the general population at risk in Ireland. METHODS: Four prevention strategies were compared: active immunization with Havrix Monodose (1440E.U); screening for anti-HAV antibody and then vaccinating; passive immunization; screening for anti-HAV antibody and then passive immunization. The cost-effective ratio was calculated for each prevention strategy. Threshold analysis, sensitivity analysis, and model extension to include indirect cost from work days lost and secondary attack rates through horizontal transmission were also derived. RESULTS: The medical costs were lowest and the infection rate highest when no preventive action was taken. Vaccination was most cost effective when the prevalence of immunity was 45% or less, reducing the infection rate by 98% when compared to nonprevention. Screening before vaccination was most cost effective when the prevalence of immunity was greater than 45%. Passive immunization and screening before passive immunization were not comparable to the other strategies in cost effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost-effective ratio for vaccination was dependent on vaccine price, incidence of HAV, and prevalence of immunity in the target group. Extending the model to include indirect costs further increased the cost effectiveness of vaccination. CONCLUSION: The best cost-effective strategy relates to target group immunity. Where HAV immunity is 45% or less, vaccination is the strategy of choice and when immunity is greater than 45%, then screening followed by vaccination should be used. This study can be used to provide a framework within which choices can be made to achieve better health for less cost. SN - 0002-9270 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/10638588/Cost_effective_analysis_of_hepatitis_A_prevention_in_Ireland_ L2 - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/openurl?genre=article&sid=nlm:pubmed&issn=0002-9270&date=2000&volume=95&issue=1&spage=223 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -