BACKGROUND: Timely initiation of antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis B virus (CHB) reduces risk of disease progression. We evaluate overall treatment rates and predictors of treatment among treatment-eligible safety-net CHB patients. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated adults with CHB from 2010 to 2018 across 4 large safety-net health systems in the United States. CHB was identified with ICD-9/10 diagnosis coding and confirmed with laboratory data. Treatment eligibility was determined using American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) guidelines. Comparison of CHB treatment rates among treatment-eligible patients were performed using χ2 testing, Kaplan Meier methods and log-rank testing. Adjusted multivariate Cox proportional hazards models evaluated independent predictors of receiving treatment among eligible patients. RESULTS: Among 5157 CHB patients (54.7% male, 34.6% African American, 22.3% Asian), 46.8% were treatment-eligible during the study period. CHB treatment rates were 48.4% overall and 37.3% among CHB patients without human immunodeficiency virus. Significantly lower odds of treatment were observed in females versus males (odds ratio: 0.40, 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.49, P<0.001) and patients age 65 years or above versus age below 45 years (odds ratio: 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.92, P=0.012). Conversely, significantly greater odds of treatment were observed in African American and Asians versus non-Hispanic whites, CHB patients with indigent care versus commercially insured patients, and non-English speaking versus English speaking patients. CONCLUSION: Among a large multicentered, safety-net cohort of CHB patients, 46.8% of treatment-eligible CHB patients overall and 37.3% of treatment-eligible CHB patients without human immunodeficiency virus received antiviral therapy. Improving CHB treatment rates among treatment-eligible patients represents "low hanging fruit," given the clear benefits of antiviral therapy in mitigating disease progression.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wong et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: