MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study on patients with newly diagnosed hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at the University Malaya Medical Centre between 2011 and 2014. Survival times were analysed using the Kaplan- Meier procedure and comparison between groups was done using the log rank test.
RESULTS: The data of 190 patients was analysed. Chronic hepatitis B was the most common aetiology for HCC (43.7%), but a large proportion was cryptogenic or non-alcoholic steatohepatitis-related (41.6%). Only 11.1% were diagnosed early (BCLC Stage 0-A) while majority were diagnosed at an intermediate stage (BCLC Stage B, 53.7%). The median survival rate was significantly different between the different groups when either of the staging systems was used (p<0.05 for all comparisons). However, the two staging systems lacked agreement (weighted kappa 0.519, 95%CI: 0.449, 0.589) with significant difference in median survival rates between BCLC Stage A and HKLC Stage 2, and between BCLC Stage C and HKLC Stage 4.
CONCLUSION: Both staging systems were able to stratify patients according to survival, but they only had moderate agreement with significant differences observed in two groups of the staging systems.
CASE PRESENTATION: 55 year old gentlemen presented with generalised pruritic erythematous rash on trunk and extremities. Six weeks prior to his consultation, antiviral agent entecavir was commenced for his chronic hepatitis B infection. Skin biopsy revealed acanthosis and focal lymphocytes with moderate perivascular lymphocyte infiltration. Skin condition recovered completely after caesation of offending drug and short course of oral corticosteroids.
CONCLUSION: This case highlight the awareness of clinicians on the spectrum of cutaneous drug reaction related to entecavir therapy.
METHODS: In this economic evaluation study, 22 primary healthcare centers were randomly selected in Malaysia between December 2019 and July 2020. The baseline immunization schedule includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses), whereas the alternative scheme includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (one dose) administered at birth. Direct medical costs were extracted using a costing questionnaire and an observational time and motion chart. Direct non-medical (cost for transportation) and indirect costs (loss of productivity) were derived from parents'/caregivers' questionnaire. Also, HCPs' and parent's/caregivers' perceptions were investigated using structured questionnaires.
RESULTS: The cost per dose of Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B vs. Hexaxim® for the baseline scheme was Malaysian ringgit (RM) 31.90 (7.7 United States dollar [USD]) vs. 17.10 (4.1 USD) for direct medical cost, RM 54.40 (13.1 USD) vs. RM 27.20 (6.6 USD) for direct non-medical cost, RM 221.33 (53.3 USD) vs. RM 110.66 (26.7 USD) for indirect cost, and RM 307.63 (74.2 USD) vs. RM 155.00 (37.4 USD) for societal (total) cost. A similar trend was observed for the alternative scheme. Compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B, total cost savings per dose of Hexaxim® were RM 137.20 (33.1 USD) and RM 104.70 (25.2 USD) in the baseline and alternative scheme, respectively. Eighty-four percent of physicians and 95% of nurses supported the use of Hexaxim® in the NIP. The majority of parents/caregivers had a positive perception regarding Hexaxim® vaccine in various aspects.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of Hexaxim® within Malaysian NIP is highly recommended because the use of Hexaxim® has demonstrated substantial direct and indirect cost savings for healthcare providers and parents/caregivers with a high percentage of positive perceptions, compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
METHODS: Adults were selected through a stratified, two-stage cluster community sample in Selangor, Malaysia. The reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the measurement model were assessed before implementing a partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) to evaluate the significance of the structural paths.
RESULTS: A total of 728 participants were enrolled. The five constructs all showed adequate internal reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. There was a significant, positive relationship to WTP from constructs (perceived barriers [Path coefficient (β) = 0.082, P = 0.036], perceived susceptibility [β = 0.214, P<0.001], and cues to action [β = 0.166, P<0.001]), and the model all together accounted for 8.8% of the variation in WTP. There was a significant, negative relationship between perceived barriers and perceived benefit [β = -0.261, P<0.001], which accounted for 6.8% of variation in perceived benefit.
CONCLUSIONS: Policy and programs should be targeted that can modify individuals' thoughts about disease risk, their obstacles in obtaining the preventive action, and their readiness to obtain a vaccine. Such programs include educational materials about disease risk and clinic visits that can pair HepB screening and vaccination.