scholarly journals Probabilistic microsimulation to examine the cost-effectiveness of hospital admission screening strategies for carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in the United Kingdom

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarkis Manoukian ◽  
Sally Stewart ◽  
Stephanie J. Dancer ◽  
Helen Mason ◽  
Nicholas Graves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Admission Screening ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
Cross Transmission ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Antimicrobial resistance has been recognised as a global threat with carbapenemase- producing-Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) as a prime example. CPE has similarities to COVID-19 where asymptomatic patients may be colonised representing a source for onward transmission. There are limited treatment options for CPE infection leading to poor outcomes and increased costs. Admission screening can prevent cross-transmission by pre-emptively isolating colonised patients. Objective We assess the relative cost-effectiveness of screening programmes compared with no- screening. Methods A microsimulation parameterised with NHS Scotland date was used to model scenarios of the prevalence of CPE colonised patients on admission. Screening strategies were (a) two-step screening involving a clinical risk assessment (CRA) checklist followed by microbiological testing of high-risk patients; and (b) universal screening. Strategies were considered with either culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. All costs were reported in 2019 UK pounds with a healthcare system perspective. Results In the low prevalence scenario, no screening had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness. Among screening strategies, the two CRA screening options were the most likely to be cost-effective. Screening was more likely to be cost-effective than no screening in the prevalence of 1 CPE colonised in 500 admitted patients or more. There was substantial uncertainty with the probabilities rarely exceeding 40% and similar results between strategies. Screening reduced non-isolated bed-days and CPE colonisation. The cost of screening was low in relation to total costs. Conclusion The specificity of the CRA checklist was the parameter with the highest impact on the cost-effectiveness. Further primary data collection is needed to build models with less uncertainty in the parameters.

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Virus Screening Strategies among Recently Arrived Migrants in the Netherlands

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (17) ◽  
pp. 6091
Author(s):  
Mohamed N.M.T. Al Khayat ◽  
Job F.H. Eijsink ◽  
Maarten J. Postma ◽  
Jan C. Wilschut ◽  
Marinus van Hulst
Keyword(s):  
Hepatitis C Virus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
Hcv Screening ◽  
The Cost

Objective: We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening strategies among recently arrived migrants in the Netherlands. Methods: A Markov model was used to estimate the health effects and costs of HCV screening from the healthcare perspective. A cohort of 50,000 recently arrived migrants was used. In this cohort, three HCV screening strategies were evaluated: (i) no screening, (ii) screening of migrants from HCV-endemic countries and (iii) screening of all migrants. Results: Strategy (ii) screening of migrants from HCV-endemic countries compared to strategy (i) no screening, yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €971 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Strategy (iii) screening of all migrants compared with strategy (ii) screening of migrants from HCV-endemic countries yielded an ICER of €1005 per QALY gained. The budget impact of strategy (ii) screening of migrants from HCV-endemic countries and strategy (iii) screening of all migrants was €13,752,039 and €20,786,683, respectively. Conclusion: HCV screening is cost-effective. However, the budget impact may have a strong influence on decision making.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Accounting for the Effect of Indeterminate Findings

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iakovos Toumazis ◽  
Emily B Tsai ◽  
S Ayca Erdogan ◽  
Summer S Han ◽  
Wenshuai Wan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Numerous health policy organizations recommend lung cancer screening, but no consensus exists on the optimal policy. Moreover, the impact of the Lung CT screening reporting and data system guidelines to manage small pulmonary nodules of unknown significance (a.k.a. indeterminate nodules) on the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening is not well established. Methods We assess the cost-effectiveness of 199 screening strategies that vary in terms of age and smoking eligibility criteria, using a microsimulation model. We simulate lung cancer-related events throughout the lifetime of US-representative current and former smokers. We conduct sensitivity analyses to test key model inputs and assumptions. Results The cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier consists of both annual and biennial screening strategies. Current guidelines are not on the frontier. Assuming 4% disutility associated with indeterminate findings, biennial screening for smokers aged 50–70 years with at least 40 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy using $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold yielding the highest health benefit. Among all health utilities, the cost-effectiveness of screening is most sensitive to changes in the disutility of indeterminate findings. As the disutility of indeterminate findings decreases, screening eligibility criteria become less stringent and eventually annual screening for smokers aged 50–70 years with at least 30 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy yielding the highest health benefit. Conclusions The disutility associated with indeterminate findings impacts the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening. Efforts to quantify and better understand the impact of indeterminate findings on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening are warranted.

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic (ZOL) acid plus endocrine therapy (ET) in premenopausal women with early breast cancer (EBC) from a Canadian perspective

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 557-557
Author(s):  
K. E. Ougari ◽  
C. Taneja ◽  
O. Sofrygin ◽  
S. Kaura ◽  
T. Delea
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Premenopausal Women ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Healthcare System Perspective ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Canadian Healthcare System ◽  
Canadian Healthcare

557 Background: The Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 12 (ABCSG-12) examined the efficacy of 3 years (yrs) of treatment with goserelin in combination with ET (anastrozole or tamoxifen) with or without ZOL 4 mg q6 mos in 1,803 premenopausal women with EBC (median age 45 yrs). After a median follow-up of 47.8 mos (max 84 mos), risk of disease-free survival (DFS) events was reduced by 36% (HR = 0.64; p = 0.01) in patients (pts) who received ZOL (ZOL+ET) compared with those who did not (ET). Methods: A Markov model was used to estimate the cost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained of 3 years treatment duration of ZOL+ET versus ET-only in premenopausal women with EBC based on results of the ABCSG-12. A Canadian healthcare system perspective and a lifetime timeframe were used. Outcomes and cost of breast cancer recurrence were based on recent published studies. Results were generated under 2 scenarios regarding duration of benefit (reduction in risk of recurrence) with ZOL: (1) Benefits persist to maximum follow-up in ABCSG-12 (trial benefit); (2) Benefits persist until death (lifetime benefit). Results: The cost of 3 years of ZOL (medication and administration) is 4 191 $CDN. Under the lifetime benefit scenario, 73% of these costs are offset by savings in the cost of recurrences. Under the trial benefit scenario, 12% are offset. QALYs gained are 1.63 yrs and 0.52 yrs under the lifetime and trial benefit scenarios respectively; cost-effectiveness is 1 122 $CDN and 3 675 $CDN per QALY gained respectively, which is well below the 50 000 $CDN per QALY threshold frequently used to assess whether therapies are cost-effective. Conclusions: The combination of ZOL + ET is a cost-effective use of healthcare resources from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals ANALISIS EFEKTIVITAS BIAYA PASIEN PNEUMONIA BALITA RAWAT INAP DI RUMAH SAKIT BHAYANGKARA MANADO

PHARMACON ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 968
Author(s):  
Monica D. Lestari ◽  
Gayatri Citraningtyas ◽  
Hosea Jaya Edi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Effective Treatment ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Retrospective Data Collection ◽  
Keywords Antibiotics ◽  
The Cost

ABSTRACTPneumonia is an infectious disease in the lower respiratory tract that affects the lung tissue. Ceftriaxone and Gentamicin antibiotics are the most numerous and good for use in the treatment of pneumonia, but of the two antibiotics is not yet known the options for more cost effective treatment, so it needs to be done the cost effectiveness analysis in order to facilitate the selection of more cost-effective treatment options especially in toddler. This study aims to determine which therapies are more cost-effective than the use of antibiotics Ceftriaxone and Gentamicin in pneumonia patients in the January-December 2018 period in the Bhayangkara Manado Hospital using descriptive research methods with retrospective data collection. The sample in this study were 22 patients, 12 patients using ceftriaxone antibiotics and 10 patients using gentamicin antibiotics. The results showed that pneumonia treatment in infants using Ceftriaxone antibiotics was more cost-effective with ACER ceftriaxone value of Rp. 503,872 / day and ICER value of Rp. 145,588 / day. Keywords : Antibiotics, CEA (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis), Pharmacoeconomy, Toddler Pneumonia. ABSTRAKPneumonia merupakan penyakit infeksi pada saluran pernapasan bagian bawah yang mengenai jaringan paru. Antibiotik Seftriakson dan Gentamisim yang paling banyak dan baik untuk digunakan dalam pengobatan pneumonia, namun dari kedua antibiotik tersebut belum diketahui pilihan terapi yang lebih cost-effective, sehingga perlu dilakukan analisis efektivitas biaya agar dapat mempermudah dalam pemilihan alternatif pengobatan yang lebih cost-effective khususnya pada balita. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menentukan terapi yang lebih cost-effective dari penggunaan antibiotik Seftriakson dan Gentamisin pada pasien pneumonia rawat inap periode Januari-Desember 2018 di Rumah Sakit Bhayangkara Manado dengan menggunakan metode penelitian deskriptif dengan pengambilan data secara retrospektif. Sampel pada penelitian ini sebanyak 22 pasien yaitu 12 pasien menggunakan antibiotik Seftriakson dan 10 pasien menggunakan antibiotik Gentamisin. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan pengobatan pneumonia pada balita menggunakan antibiotik Seftriakson lebih cost-effective dengan nilai ACER seftriakson sebesar Rp. 503,872/hari dan nilai ICER sebesar Rp. 145.588/hari. Kata Kunci : Pneumonia Balita, Antibiotik, CEA (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis), Farmakoekonomi

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Caspofungin and Fluconazole for Primary Treatment of Invasive Candidiasis and Candidemia in Ethiopia

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gebremedhin Beedemariam Gebretekle ◽  
Atalay Mulu Fentie ◽  
Girma Tekle Gebremariam ◽  
Eskinder Eshetu Ali ◽  
Daniel Asfaw Erku ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Invasive Candidiasis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Abstract Background: Caspofungin was shown to be more effective than fluconazole in treating patients with invasive candidiasis and/or candidaemia (IC/C). However, cost-effectiveness of caspofungin for treating IC/C in Ethiopia remains unknown. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of caspofungin compared to fluconazole as primary treatment of IC/C in Ethiopia.Methods: A Markov cohort model was developed to compare the cost-utility of caspofungin versus fluconazole antifungal agents as first-line treatment for adult inpatients with IC/C from the Ethiopian health system perspective. Treatment outcome was categorized as either a clinical success or failure, with clinical failure being switched to a different antifungal medication. Liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) was used as a rescue agent for patients who had failed caspofungin treatment, while caspofungin or L-AmB were used for patients who had failed fluconazole treatment. Primary outcomes were expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs (US$2021), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). QALYs and costs were discounted at 3% annually. Cost data was obtained from Addis Ababa hospitals while locally unavailable data were derived from the literature. Cost-effectiveness was assessed against the recommended threshold of 50% of Ethiopia’s gross domestic product/capita. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.Results: In the base-case analysis, treatment of IC/C with caspofungin as first-line treatment resulted in better health outcomes (12.86 QALYs) but higher costs (US$7,714) compared to fluconazole-initiated treatment followed by caspofungin (12.30 QALYs; US$3,217) or L-AmB (10.92 QALYs; US$2,781) as second-line treatment. Caspofungin as primary treatment for IC/C was not cost-effective when compared to fluconazole-initiated therapies. Fluconazole-initiated treatment followed by caspofungin was cost-effective for the treatment of IC/C compared to fluconazole with L-AmB as second-line treatment, at US$316/QALY gained. Our findings were sensitive to medication costs, drug effectiveness, infection recurrence, and infection-related mortality rates. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of our findings.Conclusions: Our study showed that the use of caspofungin as primary treatment for IC/C in Ethiopia was not cost-effective when compared with fluconazole-initiated treatment alternatives. The findings supported the use of fluconazole-initiated therapy with caspofungin as a second-line treatment to treat IC/C in Ethiopia and other low-income countries.

scholarly journals Effect and cost-effectiveness of national gastric cancer screening in Japan: a microsimulation modeling study

BMC Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsi-Lan Huang ◽  
Chi Yan Leung ◽  
Eiko Saito ◽  
Kota Katanoda ◽  
Chin Hur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Endoscopic Screening ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
Gastric Cancer Screening ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background A national endoscopic screening program for gastric cancer was rolled out in Japan in 2015. We used a microsimulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of current screening guidelines and alternative screening strategies in Japan. Methods We developed a microsimulation model that simulated a virtual population corresponding to the Japanese population in risk factor profile and life expectancy. We evaluated 15 endoscopic screening scenarios with various starting ages, stopping ages, and screening intervals. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Cost-effective screening strategies were determined using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were done to explore model uncertainty. Results Using the threshold of $50,000 per QALY, a triennial screening program for individuals aged 50 to 75 years was the cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $45,665. Compared with no endoscopic screening, this strategy is predicted to prevent 63% of gastric cancer mortality and confer 27.2 QALYs gained per 1000 individuals over a lifetime period. Current screening guidelines were not on the cost-effectiveness efficient frontier. The results were robust on one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions This modeling study suggests that the endoscopic screening program in Japan would be cost-effective when implemented between age 50 and 75 years, with the screening repeated every 3 years. These findings underscore the need for further evaluation of the current gastric cancer screening recommendations.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175628482110023
Author(s):  
Robert Benamouzig ◽  
Stéphanie Barré ◽  
Jean-Christophe Saurin ◽  
Henri Leleu ◽  
Alexandre Vimont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Familial History ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Cost

Background and aims: Current guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3–5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population. Methods: Eight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually. Results: Compared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY ( versus no screening) and €3100/QALY ( versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy ( versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening. Conclusion: At 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives. Plain Language Summary Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history. Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3–5 years. Colonoscopy every 3–5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost–effectiveness ratio. Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of BNT162b2 COVID-19 booster vaccination in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rui Li ◽  
Hanting Liu ◽  
Christopher Kit Fairley ◽  
Zhuoru Zou ◽  
Li Xie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Booster Vaccination ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Benefit Cost Ratio ◽  
The Cost

Background: Over 86% of older adults aged ≥65 years are fully vaccinated against SARS-COV-2 in the United States (US). Waning protection of the existing vaccines promotes the new vaccination strategies, such as providing a booster shot for those fully vaccinated. Methods: We developed a decision-analytic Markov model of COVID-19 to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a booster strategy of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (administered 6 months after 2nd dose) in those aged ≥65 years, from a healthcare system perspective. Findings: Compared with 2-doses of BNT162b2 without a booster, the booster strategy in a 100,000 cohort of older adults would incur an additional cost of $3.4 million, but save $6.7 million in direct medical costs in 180 days. This corresponds to a benefit-cost ratio of 1.95 and a net monetary benefit of $3.4 million. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates that with a COVID-19 incidence of 9.1/100,000 person-day, a booster strategy has a high chance (67%) of being cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of the booster strategy is highly sensitive to the population incidence of COVID-19, with a cost-effectiveness threshold of 8.1/100,000 person-day. This threshold will increase with a decrease in vaccine and booster efficacies. Doubling the vaccination cost or halving the medical cost for COVID-19 treatment alone would not alter the conclusion of cost-effectiveness, but certain combinations of the two might render the booster strategy not cost-effective. Interpretation: Offering BNT162b2 boosters to older adults aged ≥65 years in the US is likely to be cost-effective. Less efficacious vaccines and boosters may still be cost-effective in settings of high SARS-COV-2 transmission. Funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China. Berlina and Bill Gates Foundation

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Molecular Screening to Identify Lynch Syndrome in the Patients with Colorectal Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hananeh Azardoost ◽  
Farimah Rahimi ◽  
Mehrdad Zeinalian ◽  
Reza Rezayatmand
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lynch Syndrome ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Tree Model ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
The Cost

Background: Identifying Lynch syndrome (LS) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and monitoring their relatives can increase the life expectancy of these patients. Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of 5 molecular testing strategies to screen LS among patients with newly diagnosed CRC and to conduct preventive surveillance in their first-degree relatives. Methods: A decision tree model was designed to identify the number of LS mutations and the related costs in the CRC patients. Five strategies were modeled, i.e., Amsterdam II criteria, microsatellite instability (MSI) testing, immunohistochemistry (IHC), and next-generation sequencing (NGS). A Marko model was also used to estimate the long-term outcome of monitoring (including colonoscopy and taking aspirin) among relatives of those patients with CRC who carried LS. Results: All strategies were cost-effective compared with no testing condition. The 2 most cost-effective strategies were strategy 2 (IHC testing followed by NGS testing) and strategy 4 (MSI testing followed by NGS testing), with the ICER of 4,604$ and 4,748$ per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively. Based on one-way sensitivity analysis of IHC sensitivity, the Cost of colonoscopy, MSI sensitivity, and the number of families who inherited LS had the most effect on the results. Conclusions: The findings suggested that from an Iranian health care system perspective, IHC testing followed by NGS testing could be regarded as the most cost-effective strategy compared to the other strategies. These results can be useful in offering to screen LS in newly diagnosed CRC patients.

Cost-effectiveness of primarily human papillomavirus–based cervical cancer screening in settings with currently established Pap screening: A systematic review commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Health

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (02) ◽  
pp. 184-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolai Mühlberger ◽  
Gaby Sroczynski ◽  
Eva Esteban ◽  
Thomas Mittendorf ◽  
Rebecca A. Miksad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Pap Screening ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
Hpv Screening ◽  
The Cost

Objectives:The aim of this study was to summarize the current evidence for the cost-effectiveness of primarily human papillomavirus (HPV) -based cervical cancer screening in settings with already established Papanicolaou test (Pap) programs. Emphasis was placed on the German situation with annual Pap screening.Methods:Medical, economic, and health technology assessment (HTA) databases were systematically searched for cost-effectiveness studies comparing HPV to Pap screening. Study data were extracted, standardized, and summarized in cost-effectiveness plots contrasting HPV strategies to Pap screening with 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-years interval. For each Pap setting, the likelihood of cost-effective HPV screening was assessed depending on willingness-to-pay.Results:We reviewed twelve decision-analytic cost-effectiveness models. Study results showed wide variation due to methodical heterogeneity. Data synthesis revealed that the cost-effectiveness of HPV screening depends on the interval of the established Pap screening strategy. In comparison with Pap screening every 2 years, only 25 percent of the HPV-based screening strategies were cost-effective. However, in comparison with Pap screening every 1, 3, or 5 years, 83 percent, 55 percent, and 92 percent of HPV screening strategies were cost-effective, respectively. Results for settings with annual Pap screening are based on models assuming 100 percent screening coverage.Conclusions:The introduction of HPV-based screening programs is cost-effective if the screening interval of the established Pap program exceeds 2 years. In settings with biennial Pap screening, introduction of HPV-based screening is unlikely to be cost-effective. Results also suggest cost-effectiveness of HPV-based screening in settings with annual Pap screening; however, this finding should be confirmed under realistic screening adherence assumptions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document