Objectives: Although hepatitis A and B vaccinations are recommended for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV), the ideal vaccination strategy has not been determined. Our objective was to model the cost-effectiveness of two strategies for vaccinating patients with HCV infection against hepatitis A (HAV) and hepatitis B (HBV) viruses. The strategies evaluated were: universal vaccination with the combined HAV and HBV vaccine, and selective vaccination based on immunity determined by blood testing.
Methods: A decision tree model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two vaccination strategies from the New Mexico Veterans Affairs Health Care System (NMVAHCS) perspective. A retrospective review of all HCV patients (2517 subjects) at the NMVAHCS was performed to extract prevalence of immunity to HAV and HBV, and prevalence of decompensated liver disease. Literature review was performed to obtain other probabilities for the model. Only direct medical costs were considered; the effectiveness measure was the number of patients immune to both HAV and HBV. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test robustness of the results to changes in input variables. All costs were in 2004 US dollars.
Results: The selective strategy was less costly but less effective, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of 105 dollars per patient immune to HAV and HBV. The universal strategy was more effective but more expensive with a cost-effectiveness ratio of 112 dollars per patient immune to HAV and HBV. Compared with the selective strategy, universal strategy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) ratio of 154 dollars per additional patient immune to HAV and HBV. The universal strategy would become more cost-effective if 1) the cost of combined vaccine was reduced to less than 30.75 dollars (9.7% reduction), 2) the cost of HBV vaccine increased to greater than 34.50 dollars (25% increase), 3) the cost of blood tests for immunity increased to more than 25.25 dollars (23% increase), or (4) the prevalence of anti-HBs decreased to less than 24%.
Conclusions: The selective vaccination strategy for HAV and HBV in our sample of patients with HCV is more cost-effective. However, the universal strategy is more effective and its ICE is minimal, thus it may be worth the additional cost.