Variable access to antiviral treatment of chronic hepatitis B in Canada: a descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis B is costly, which presents challenges for universal drug coverage for the estimated 480 000 people with the disease in Canada. We appraised criteria for reimbursement of chronic hepatitis B antivirals by public drug plans in Canada. METHODS: In this descriptive study, we reviewed the reimbursement criteria for lamivudine, adefovir, tenofovir, entecavir, telbivudine, pegylated or standard interferon, and emtricitabine-tenofovir in the 10 provinces and the Yukon Territory as well as 3 federal programs: Correctional Services Canada, Veterans' Affairs and the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program. We extracted data from publicly available formularies. The primary outcomes extracted were prescriber details, reimbursement regulations and published list price. RESULTS: All public drug insurance plans limit access to antiviral treatment in patients with chronic hepatitis B based on viral characteristics, fibrosis stage and/or specialist approval. Lamivudine use is restricted only in British Columbia and Ontario. Six plans (43%) cover entecavir or tenofovir with no restriction, and 8 plans (57%) cover these agents if patients have advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis. Nine plans (64%) provide coverage of interferon, although 4 of these programs reimburse only nonpegylated interferon, which is not currently recommended for chronic hepatitis B treatment. INTERPRETATION: We found substantial variability among jurisdictions in reimbursement criteria for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B in Canada. The findings can inform health policy and support the development and adoption of a national chronic hepatitis B strategy to ensure equitable and timely access to treatment no matter where patients reside in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".