Search

Objectives: Infants born to mothers who are hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive are at risk for perinatal hepatitis B infection. As prevention, these infants receive a series of 3 or 4 doses of hepatitis B vaccine starting at birth and postvaccination serologic testing. Infants with antibody levels <10 mIU/mL are considered vaccine nonresponders and should be revaccinated. The objective of this cost analysis was to assess a single-dose revaccination strategy among infant nonresponders. Methods: We used a decision analytic tree to compare the costs of a single-dose revaccination strategy with the costs of a 3-dose revaccination strategy. The analysis consisted of 3 epidemiologic scenarios that varied levels of previous protection among infants indicated for revaccination. We assumed health outcomes in each strategy were the same, and we evaluated costs from the societal perspective using 2016 US dollars. We conducted sensitivity analyses on key variables, including the minimum required efficacy of a single revaccination dose. Results: In all analyses, the single-dose revaccination strategy was a lower-cost option than the 3-dose revaccination strategy. Under the assumption that all revaccination visits were previously unscheduled, single-dose revaccination reduced the cost per infant by $119.81 to $155.72 (depending on the scenario). Across all scenarios, the most conservative estimate for the threshold efficacy (the minimum efficacy required to result in a lower-cost option) value of single-dose revaccination was 67%. Conclusions: For infants who were born to HBsAg-positive mothers and who were not responding to the initial vaccine series, a single-dose revaccination strategy, compared with a 3-dose revaccination strategy, reduced costs across several scenarios. These results helped inform the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' vote in February 2017 to recommend single-dose revaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multiple techniques have been suggested for the treatment of isolated knee articular cartilage injuries. For smaller lesions (<2-5 cm2), microfracture and osteochondral autograft transplantation (OAT) are commonly used options. With an increasing focus on health care efficiency, analyzing the cost-effectiveness of treatment modalities has become increasingly important. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to analyze the costs and outcomes of microfracture and OAT to compare their cost-effectiveness. The hypothesis was that microfracture would be more cost-effective. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify studies comparing microfracture and OAT for the treatment of articular cartilage lesions of the distal femur in an adult population. Data from these studies including surgical time, failure rates, revision surgeries, outcome scores, and return to athletics were then incorporated into a constructed cost model using standard accounting methodology. The model was based on actual 2013 cost figures (in US dollars) for all procedure, operating room, and instrumentation costs. Results: Three studies, with a mean follow-up of 8.7 years, met the inclusion criteria of having evidence level 1 or 2 comparing microfracture and OAT. There was a cumulative 28.6% reoperation rate among patients undergoing microfracture compared with 12.5% among patients undergoing OAT. While both groups demonstrated significant improvements compared with preoperative levels, the only significant differences in any outcome score reported between the 2 procedures were the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) score and patient-reported return to their previous sports activity level. While microfracture had a lower initial cost ($3100), these savings lessened over 1 year ($1843) and 10 years ($996). Microfracture was more cost-effective when comparing Lysholm and Hospital for Special Surgery scores, whereas OAT was more cost-effective when comparing Tegner and ICRS scores. There was a significantly lower cost for return to play in athletes after OAT versus microfracture at 1 year ($11,428 vs $16,953, respectively), 3 years ($12,856 vs $38,000, respectively), and 10 years ($32,141 vs $60,799, respectively). Conclusion: Published level 1 and 2 clinical studies with a 10-year follow-up demonstrated that the net cost and cost-effectiveness of microfracture and OAT are comparable for the treatment of isolated articular cartilage lesions of the distal femur. Clinical Relevance: Given similar clinical outcomes, microfracture and OAT are both viable, cost-effective first-line treatment options for these injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]