Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis E Vaccination Strategies among Patients with Chronic Liver Diseases in China: A Model-Based Evaluation.

Abstract

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is a leading cause of acute viral hepatitis worldwide, primarily transmitted through contaminated water and food. In patients with chronic liver disease (CLD), HEV infection might worsen the prognosis. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis E vaccination strategies in CLD patients. A decision tree-Markov cohort model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of universal-vaccination, vaccination-following-screening, and no-vaccination strategies in 100,000 CLD patients over their lifetimes, simulating cohorts aged ≥16 years, ≥40 years, and ≥60 years, based on the licensed vaccination ages and typical ages of CLD onset, from a societal perspective. Model parameters were retrieved and estimated from previous publications and government data. The outcomes included HEV-related cases, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Compared to no-vaccination, universal-vaccination reduced HEV-related cases by 32.8% to 39.6%, while vaccination-following-screening reduced them by 38.1% to 49.3%. Furthermore, universal-vaccination showed ICERs of USD 6898.33, USD 6638.91, and USD 6582.69 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for cohorts aged ≥16, ≥40, and ≥60 years, respectively. Moreover, the vaccination-following-screening strategy significantly enhanced cost-effectiveness, with ICERs decreasing to USD 6201.55, USD 5199.46, and USD 4919.87 per QALY for the cohorts. Additionally, one-way sensitivity analysis identified the discount rate and utility for CLD patients as the key factors influencing ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated the vaccination-following-screening strategy was cost-effective with probabilities of 92.50%, 95.70%, and 95.90% for each cohort. Hepatitis E vaccination in CLD patients costs less than GDP per capita for each QALY gained in China. The vaccination-following-screening strategy may be the optimal option, especially in those over 60 years.