Abstract
There is no universal recommendation for managing the reactivation of HBV in patients with resolved HBV infection treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of two commonly used strategies: prophylactic anti-HBV nucleos(t)ide analog therapy (Pro NAT), and HBV DNA monitoring followed by on-demand antiviral therapy (HBV DNA monitoring). Using a decision tree model, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated. The threshold for cost-effectiveness was set at 5,000,000 JPY, equivalent to 45,662 USD. In a base-case analysis, HBV DNA monitoring was found to be more cost-effective based on the calculation of ICER as 132,048 USD per QALY, a value that far exceeds 45,662 USD. The same results were consistently obtained by a one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis, even after changing each parameter value within the predetermined range. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10,000 simulations also revealed that HBV DNA monitoring is more cost-effective than Pro NAT in 96.8% of cases. Therefore, this study suggests that HBV DNA monitoring is an appropriate managing measure in Japan from a cost-effectiveness perspective.