Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2016
Cost-effectiveness of quantitative hepatitis B virus surface antigen testing in pregnancy in predicting vertical transmission risk.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Samadi Kochaksaraei Golasa, Congly Stephen E, Matwiy Trudy, Castillo Eliana, Martin Steven R, Charlton Carmen L, Coffin Carla S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Vertical transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV) can occur despite immunoprophylaxis in mothers with high HBV DNA levels (>5-7 log10 IU/ml). Quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen (qHBsAg) testing could be used as a surrogate marker to identify high viral load carriers, but there is limited data in pregnancy. We conducted a prospective observational study to determine the cost-effectiveness and utility of qHBsAg as a valid surrogate marker of HBV DNA.
METHODS: Pregnant patients with chronic hepatitis B were recruited from a tertiary referral centre. HBV DNA levels and qHBsAg were assessed in the second to third trimester. Statistical analysis was performed by Spearman's rank correlation and student's t-test. The cost-effectiveness of qHBsAg as compared to HBV DNA testing was calculated.
RESULTS: Ninety nine women with 103 pregnancies, median age 32 years, 65% Asian, 23% African and 12% other [Hispanic, Caucasian] were enrolled. Overall, 23% (23/99) were HBV e Ag (HBeAg)-positive. A significant correlation between qHBsAg and HBV DNA levels was noted in HBeAg-positive patients (r = 0.79, P < 0.05) but not in HBeAg-negative patients (r = 0.17, P = 0.06). In receiver operating characteristic analysis, the optimal qHBsAg cut-off values for predicting maternal viraemia associated with immunoprophylaxis failure (i.e., HBV DNA ≥7 log10 IU/ml) was 4.3 log10 IU/ml (accuracy 98.7%, sensitivity 94.7%, specificity 94.4%) (95% CI, 97-100%, P < 0.05). Use of HBV DNA as compared to qHBsAg costs approximately $20 000 more per infection prevented.
CONCLUSION: In resource poor regions, qHBsAg could be used as a more cost-effective marker for high maternal viraemia, and indicate when anti-HBV nucleos/tide analogue therapy should be used to prevent HBV immunoprophylaxis failure.
METHODS: Pregnant patients with chronic hepatitis B were recruited from a tertiary referral centre. HBV DNA levels and qHBsAg were assessed in the second to third trimester. Statistical analysis was performed by Spearman's rank correlation and student's t-test. The cost-effectiveness of qHBsAg as compared to HBV DNA testing was calculated.
RESULTS: Ninety nine women with 103 pregnancies, median age 32 years, 65% Asian, 23% African and 12% other [Hispanic, Caucasian] were enrolled. Overall, 23% (23/99) were HBV e Ag (HBeAg)-positive. A significant correlation between qHBsAg and HBV DNA levels was noted in HBeAg-positive patients (r = 0.79, P < 0.05) but not in HBeAg-negative patients (r = 0.17, P = 0.06). In receiver operating characteristic analysis, the optimal qHBsAg cut-off values for predicting maternal viraemia associated with immunoprophylaxis failure (i.e., HBV DNA ≥7 log10 IU/ml) was 4.3 log10 IU/ml (accuracy 98.7%, sensitivity 94.7%, specificity 94.4%) (95% CI, 97-100%, P < 0.05). Use of HBV DNA as compared to qHBsAg costs approximately $20 000 more per infection prevented.
CONCLUSION: In resource poor regions, qHBsAg could be used as a more cost-effective marker for high maternal viraemia, and indicate when anti-HBV nucleos/tide analogue therapy should be used to prevent HBV immunoprophylaxis failure.