Thus, much of the expense of vaccination, screening tests, and an

Thus, much of the expense of vaccination, screening tests, and any treatments is currently paid by patients or their families. It will be important to consider the cost-effectiveness learn more of providing free vaccination nationwide, as well as free or low-cost treatment, where needed, as part of a strategy to reduce the impact that low income has on successful prevention of liver disease. Looking at the cost-effectiveness

of a program to prevent liver disease means looking at the costs of screening, vaccination, treatments, and other interventions that could ultimately help prevent liver disease and comparing those up-front costs to the potential benefits down the line from the disease prevention versus the outcome if there is no intervention. In looking at outcomes, cost-effectiveness studies incorporate loss of quality of life as well as actual loss of years of life by using what is called the

disability-adjusted life year (DALY), with one DALY equal to the loss of one healthy year of life. According CH5424802 manufacturer to the WHO, an intervention is defined as “cost-effective” when each DALY averted costs between one and three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. An intervention is defined as “very cost-effective” if each additional DALY is prevented at a cost less than the per capita GDP.35 A major review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis B vaccination found that in areas of low, intermediate and high endemicity, universal vaccination is generally cost-effective.36 A cost-effectiveness analysis of universal childhood HBV immunization in low-income countries with intermediate endemicity found it to be very cost-effective.37 Although a national study to assess the cost-effectiveness of a nationwide

program to prevent CHB in Viet Nam has not yet been done, a recent study in China gives strong support for the likelihood that it would be very cost-effective, showing that if China spent $US423 million selleck inhibitor on free “catch-up” vaccination, it would produce a net return in the economy of $US840 million from lower health-care costs.38 Studies have also shown the cost-effectiveness of substituting safe injection practices in health-care settings for the re-use of syringes and needles that currently leads to transmission of multiple infections.39,40 One large study showed that in all regions of the world studied, policies for the safe and appropriate use of injections would be highly cost-effective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>