Search

Appendix A. Input paratemeters of the model. Table A1. Transition probabilities at 6-month interval, proportion values and discount rate used in the model. Table A2. Costs values (inflated to 2019-20 price)* at 6-month interval and Health state utility values (HSUV) used in the model. Table A3. Health price index, 2013/14 to 2019/20 (reference year 2019/20: 100) [30]. Table A5. Treatments for HCC at different BCLC stages (Triangular distribution for PSA) [32]. Table A6. Cumulative mortality rate of Cholangiocarcinoma at time of diagnosis [33]. Table A7. Cumulative mortality rate after liver transplant [12]. Table A8. Annual recurrence rate after liver resection [34]. Table A9. Cumulative recurrence rate after liver ablation [35]. Table A10. Treatments after HCC recurrence (Beta distribution for PSA with Standard deviation = 20% of the mean.Appendix B. Distribution of age at baseline in Australia, 2020. Table B1. Number and percentage of Australians by age. Figure B1. Distribution of age at baseline. Appendix C. Cost-effectiveness results of exclusive surveillance for non-cirrhotic CHB, compensated cirrhosis and decompensated cirrhosis population. Table C1. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies on non-cirrhotic CHB people only. Table C2. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies on compensated cirrhosis patients only.Table C3. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies on decompensated cirrhosis patients only. Appendix D. Results of sensitivity and threshold analyses. Figure D2. Disease progression rates from CHB to compensated cirrhosis at different age ranges: (A) 20 to 80; (B) 30 to 80; (C) 40 to 80; (D) 50 to 80. Figure D3. Incremental cost-effectiveness scatterplot for Ultrasound+AFP versus status quo at real-world adherence rates, baseline population aged 40 to 80 years (green points represent optimal strategies, eclipse area represents 95% confidence interval). Figure D4. Incremental cost-effectiveness scatterplot for Ultrasound versus status quo at real-world adherence rate, baseline population aged 40 to 80 years (green points represent optimal strategies, eclipse area represents 95% confidence interval). Appendix E. Validation of the model. Table E1. Internal validity results. Table E2. External validity results. Table E3. Mean error values of internal and external validation. Figure E. Goodness-of-fit results of the model. Appendix F. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Checklist. Appendix G. Reference

LINKED CONTENT This article is linked to Taxonera et al paper. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15804

Supplemental material, Supplementary_Material for The intestinal vitamin D receptor in inflammatory bowel disease: inverse correlation with inflammation but no relationship with circulating vitamin D status by Mayur Garg, Simon G. Royce, Chris Tikellis, Claire Shallue, Pavel Sluka, Hady Wardan, Patrick Hosking, Shaun Monagle, Merlin Thomas, John S. Lubel and Peter R. Gibson in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology