METHODS: In 2016, 728 households were selected through a stratified, two stage cluster sample and interviewed. Willingness to pay for hepatitis B vaccine was estimated using the Contingent Valuation Method, and factors affecting WTP were modelled with logit regression.
RESULTS: We found that 273 (37.5%) of the households were willing to pay for hepatitis B vaccination. The mean and median of WTP was estimated at Ringgit Malaysia (RM)303 (approximately US$73) for the three dose series. The estimated WTP was significantly greater in those with higher levels of education, among Malays and Chinese (compared to others, predominantly Indians), and for those with greater perceived susceptibility to hepatitis B virus infection. Other factors-perceived severity, barriers, benefits and cues to action-were not significantly associated with WTP for adult hepatitis B vaccination.
CONCLUSION: Additional resources are needed to cover the households that are not willing to pay for hepatitis B vaccination. More awareness (particularly in regards to hepatitis B virus susceptibility) could change the national perception towards self-paid hepatitis B virus vaccination and increase hepatitis B vaccine coverage.
METHODS: Randomized trials, assessing the efficacy of antiviral drugs for HBV and HIV co-infected patients were searched in health-related databases. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Main outcome in this meta-analysis study was the success of treatment by antivirals as determined by virologic response. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis of these trials and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Seven randomized trials (329 participants) were included in this network meta-analysis study. A network geometry was formed with six treatment options including four antiviral drugs, adefovir (ADV), emtricitabine (FTC), lamivudine (LMV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), combination treatment of TDF plus LMV, and placebo. The weighted percentage contributions of each comparison distributed fairly equally in the entire network of evidence. An assumption of consistency required for network meta-analysis was not violated (the global Wald test for inconsistency: Chi2(4) = 3.63, p = 0.46). The results of estimates showed no differences between the treatment regimens in terms of viral response for treating HBV and HIV co-infected patients, which spanned both benefit and harm (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.06-2.41). Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low in all comparisons (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: 218 fewer per 1000,121 more to 602 fewer, very low certainty). Therefore, we remained uncertain to the true ranking of the antiviral treatments in HBV/ HIV co-infected patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the evidence is insufficient to provide guidance to the relative effectiveness of currently available antiviral drugs with dual activity in treating co-infection of HBV/HIV. Well-designed, large clinical trials in this field to address other important outcomes from different epidemiological settings are recommended.