Teppakdee Anchalee, Tangwitoon Araya, Khemasuwan Danai, Tangdhanakanond Kawin, Suramaethakul Nuttanun, Sriratanaban Jiruth, Poovorawan Yong
Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2002 Mar;33(1):118-27.
We constructed a decision model to simulate costs and benefits for persons in the context of hepatitis A prevention. Three strategies were compared: i) no intervention; ii) vaccination against hepatitis A without screening; iii) vaccination against hepatitis A for those susceptible after screening for anti-HAV. We divided the population into 3 age groups : 3-11 years, 12-18 years and 19-40 years. Data regarding the cost of treatment and vaccination were obtained from the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital. Relevant probabilities were obtained from published literature and expert opinion. At the present incidence of hepatitis A infection, in all age groups examined, the net benefits of a universal no-intervention strategy were higher than those of either vaccination (intervention) strategy. The cost of vaccination without screening in the 3-11-year and 12-18-year groups would equal the benefit if the incidence rates amounted to approximately 138 and 212 infected individuals per 100,000, respectively, that of vaccination with screening at incidence rates of about 200 and 260 infected persons per 100,000, respectively. In the 19-40-year group, the cost incurred by vaccination either with or without screening would equal the benefit at an incidence rate above 450 infected individual per 100,000. For the benefits to outweigh the estimated vaccination costs at present the vaccine is still too expensive. The cost of vaccination without screening in the 3-11-year group would equal the benefit if the cost of vaccine was about 586 baht/2 doses (293 baht/dose), and about 500 baht/2 doses (250 baht/dose) in the 12-18-year group. Likewise, because of the cost of vaccine, it would not be cost-beneficial in the 19-40-year group both with and without screening, and neither would it be in the 3-11-year and 12-18-year groups including screening. According to current standards, under the conditions of the present study the benefit of hepatitis A vaccination administered to the general population between the age of 3 and 40 years in Thailand does not justify the expenses incurred. Major changes in hepatitis A incidence, anti-HAV seroprevalence, vaccine cost or the treatment outcome would be required to potentially render either intervention strategy cost beneficial.
我们构建了一个决策模型,以模拟甲型肝炎预防背景下人群的成本和效益。比较了三种策略:i)不干预;ii)不进行筛查的甲型肝炎疫苗接种;iii)在筛查抗甲型肝炎病毒(anti-HAV)后对易感者进行甲型肝炎疫苗接种。我们将人群分为3个年龄组:3 - 11岁、12 - 18岁和19 - 40岁。治疗和疫苗接种成本的数据来自朱拉隆功国王纪念医院。相关概率来自已发表的文献和专家意见。在目前甲型肝炎感染发病率下,在所检查的所有年龄组中,普遍不干预策略的净效益高于任何一种疫苗接种(干预)策略。在3 - 11岁和12 - 18岁组中,不进行筛查的疫苗接种成本在发病率分别约为每10万人138例和212例感染者时将等于效益,而进行筛查的疫苗接种在发病率分别约为每10万人200例和260例感染者时效益相当。在19 - 40岁组中,无论是否进行筛查,疫苗接种成本在发病率高于每10万人450例感染者时将等于效益。就目前而言,要使效益超过估计的疫苗接种成本,疫苗仍然过于昂贵。在3 - 11岁组中,不进行筛查的疫苗接种成本在疫苗成本约为586泰铢/2剂(293泰铢/剂)时将等于效益,在12 - 18岁组中约为500泰铢/2剂(250泰铢/剂)。同样,由于疫苗成本,在19 - 40岁组中无论是否进行筛查都不具有成本效益,在3 - 11岁和12 - 18岁组中包括筛查也是如此。根据当前标准,在本研究条件下,泰国3至四十岁普通人群接种甲型肝炎疫苗的效益不足以证明所产生的费用合理。甲型肝炎发病率、抗甲型肝炎病毒血清流行率、疫苗成本或治疗结果的重大变化可能使任何一种干预策略具有成本效益。