CLINICAL MONITORING AND HCRU AMONG INDIVIDUALS WITH CHRONIC HEPATITIS B IN THE UK: A PHYSICIAN-REPORTED RETROSPECTIVE REAL-WORLD ANALYSIS
Author(s)
Caity E. Patrick, MSc1, Adeola O. Oliyide, MSc1, Helen Boothman, MRPharmS1, Tia Pennant, BSc2.
1GlaxoSmithKline, London, United Kingdom, 2Adelphi Mill, Bollington, United Kingdom.
1GlaxoSmithKline, London, United Kingdom, 2Adelphi Mill, Bollington, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) management requires monitoring, yet how this is delivered in practice remains unclear. Objective is to characterise UK healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) and monitoring across physician specialties in adults with CHB.
METHODS: Data were derived from a UK cross-sectional Adelphi Hepatitis Disease Specific Programme (DSP)™. HCRU, consultation frequency, and monitoring practices were descriptively analysed.
RESULTS: Data comprised physician-reported data for CHB patients. 22 physicians reported data on 116 CHB patients managed in primary care (n=36), hepatology (n=38), gastroenterology (n=15), and infectious diseases (n=27). Multiple approaches to management were observed. Mean consultation frequency was 2.9 (SD: 2.52) visits per patient annually. Hepatology-managed patients had the lowest consultation frequency (mean 2.3, SD: 1.68), whilst gastroenterologists had the highest (mean 4.33, SD: 4.67).
Post-hoc analysis showed among patients managed by specialists (n=80), monitoring practices were heterogeneous. Alanine aminotransferase (74%, n=59) and aspartate aminotransferase (60%, n=48) were commonly assessed, whereas HBV viral load testing (48%, n=38) and ultrasound imaging (36%, n=29) were utilised less consistently. HBsAg testing varied; qualitative HBsAg was used in 20% (n=16) of patients and more frequently by hepatologists (34%, n=13). Speciality treated patients underwent a mean of 21.1 (SD:13.3) lab tests in the last 12 months.
Among anti-viral treated patients managed by a specialist (n=66, post-hoc analysis), key treatment priorities included long-term efficacy (65%, n=43) and transmission reduction (59%, n=39). Reported areas for improvement included increasing likelihood of functional cure (36%, n=24) and reduction in severity (30%, n=20).
CONCLUSIONS: UK CHB management shows substantial variation in HCRU and monitoring practices across and within specialties. Variation in follow-up patterns and test utilisation across care settings indicate inconsistent management approaches and suggests clinical specialisation is not necessarily associated with increased visit frequency. Greater alignment of monitoring protocols and care pathways may improve consistency, optimise resource use, and better support clinical decision-making.
METHODS: Data were derived from a UK cross-sectional Adelphi Hepatitis Disease Specific Programme (DSP)™. HCRU, consultation frequency, and monitoring practices were descriptively analysed.
RESULTS: Data comprised physician-reported data for CHB patients. 22 physicians reported data on 116 CHB patients managed in primary care (n=36), hepatology (n=38), gastroenterology (n=15), and infectious diseases (n=27). Multiple approaches to management were observed. Mean consultation frequency was 2.9 (SD: 2.52) visits per patient annually. Hepatology-managed patients had the lowest consultation frequency (mean 2.3, SD: 1.68), whilst gastroenterologists had the highest (mean 4.33, SD: 4.67).
Post-hoc analysis showed among patients managed by specialists (n=80), monitoring practices were heterogeneous. Alanine aminotransferase (74%, n=59) and aspartate aminotransferase (60%, n=48) were commonly assessed, whereas HBV viral load testing (48%, n=38) and ultrasound imaging (36%, n=29) were utilised less consistently. HBsAg testing varied; qualitative HBsAg was used in 20% (n=16) of patients and more frequently by hepatologists (34%, n=13). Speciality treated patients underwent a mean of 21.1 (SD:13.3) lab tests in the last 12 months.
Among anti-viral treated patients managed by a specialist (n=66, post-hoc analysis), key treatment priorities included long-term efficacy (65%, n=43) and transmission reduction (59%, n=39). Reported areas for improvement included increasing likelihood of functional cure (36%, n=24) and reduction in severity (30%, n=20).
CONCLUSIONS: UK CHB management shows substantial variation in HCRU and monitoring practices across and within specialties. Variation in follow-up patterns and test utilisation across care settings indicate inconsistent management approaches and suggests clinical specialisation is not necessarily associated with increased visit frequency. Greater alignment of monitoring protocols and care pathways may improve consistency, optimise resource use, and better support clinical decision-making.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE184
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Disease
Infectious Disease (non-vaccine)