Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T06:09:20.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-effectiveness of a cervical screening program with human papillomavirus vaccine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2011

Elizaveta Sopina  and
Toni Ashton
Elizaveta Sopina
Affiliation:
The University of Auckland
Toni Ashton
Affiliation:
The University of Auckland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Recent introduction of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for girls in New Zealand is expected to decrease the incidence of HPV infection as well as resultant cytological abnormalities and cervical cancer. This may affect the cost-effectiveness of the national cervical screening program by reducing the incidence of lesions detected. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of the current cervical screening policy with and without the HPV vaccine and compares these results with the cost-effectiveness of a range of other screening strategies.

Methods: A Markov state-transition model was built based on the natural history of HPV and cervical carcinogenesis. The model followed a hypothetical cohort of girls from 12 years to 85 years of age or death, through screening and treatment pathways. The model compared a “no vaccine and current screening” strategy with a selection of screening strategies with different age ranges and frequency intervals.

Results: The most cost-effective cervical screening strategy in the presence of the HPV vaccine would be screening women aged 30–60 every 5 years. Moving to this screening strategy from the base case of no vaccine and the current New Zealand strategy of screening women aged 20–69 every 3 years is predicted to have an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained of NZ$9,841 (€4,428).

Conclusions: Reducing screening intensity from 3 to 5 years as well as narrowing the screening age range for the vaccinated cohort once they reach mid-twenties is recommended. The importance of achieving a high vaccine uptake in New Zealand remains high.

Keywords

HPV vaccineCervical screeningCervical cancerCost-effectiveness
Type
ASSESSMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 290 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Anderson, R, Haas, M, Shanahan, M. The cost-effectiveness of cervical screening in Australia: What is the impact of screening at different intervals or over a different age range? Aust N Z J Public Health. 2008;32:43–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Anttila, A, Ronco, G, Clifford, G, et al. Cervical cancer screening programmes and policies in 18 European countries. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:935–941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Ault, KA, The Future II Study Group. Effect of prophylactic human papillomavirus L1 virus-like-particle vaccine on risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2, grade 3, and adenocarcinoma in situ: A combined analysis of four randomised clinical trials. Lancet. 2007;369:1861–1868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cervical screening in Australia 2006–2007. Cancer Series. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2009.Google Scholar
5. Brisson, M, Van de Velde, N, De Wals, P, Boily, M-C. The potential cost-effectiveness of prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccines in Canada. Vaccine. 2007;25:5399–5408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Canfell, K, Barnabas, R, Patnick, J, Beral, V. The predicted effect of changes in cervical screening practice in the UK: Results from a modelling study. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:530–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Debicki, D, Ferko, N, Demarteau, N, et al. Comparison of detailed and succinct cohort modelling approaches in a multi-regional evaluation of cervical cancer vaccination. Vaccine. 2008;26 (Suppl 5):F16–F28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Elbasha, E, Dasbach, E, Insinga, R. A Multi-Type HPV Transmission Model. Bull Math Biol. 2008;70:2126–2176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. European Cervical Cancer Screening Network. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical screening. Luxembourg: Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, European Commission; 2003.Google Scholar
10. Goldie, SJ, Grima, D, Kohli, M, et al. A comprehensive natural history model of HPV infection and cervical cancer to estimate the clinical impact of a prophylactic HPV-16/18 vaccine. Int J Cancer. 2003;106:896–904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Goldie, SJ, Kohli, M, Grima, D, et al. Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:604–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Hillemanns, P, Petry, K, Largeron, N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a tetravalent human papillomavirus vaccine in Germany. J Public Health. 2008;17:77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Insinga, R, Dasbach, E, Elbasha, E. Epidemiologic natural history and clinical management of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Disease: A critical and systematic review of the literature in the development of an HPV dynamic transmission model. BMC Infect Dis. 2009;9:119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Joura, EA, Leodolter, S, Hernandez-Avila, M, et al. Efficacy of a quadrivalent prophylactic human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like-particle vaccine against high-grade vulval and vaginal lesions: A combined analysis of three randomised clinical trials. Lancet. 2007;369:1693–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Kim, JJ, Wright, TC, Goldie, SJ. Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA. 2002;287:2382–2390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Koulova, A, Tsui, J, Irwin, K, et al. Country recommendations on the inclusion of HPV vaccines in national immunization programmes among high-income countries, June 2006–January 2008. Vaccine. 2008;26:6529–6541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Kulasingam, S, Connelly, L, Conway, E, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to the Australian National Cervical Cancer Screening Program. Sex Health. 2007;4:165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Linos, A, Riza, E. Comparisons of cervical cancer screening programmes in the European Union. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:2260–2265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Mandelblatt, JS, Lawrence, WF, Gaffikin L, et al. Costs and benefits of different strategies to screen for cervical cancer in less-developed countries. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1469–1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Maxwell, GL, Carlson, JW, Ochoa, M, et al. Costs and effectiveness of alternative strategies for cervical cancer screening in military beneficiaries. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:740–748.Google ScholarPubMed
21. Ministry of Health. Cancer: New registrations and deaths 2005. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2008.Google Scholar
22. Ministry of Health, HPV Project Team. The HPV (Human Papillomavirus) Immunisation Programme. National implementation strategic overview. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2008.Google Scholar
23. Muñoz, N, Castellsagué, X, de González, AB, Gissmann, L. Chapter 1: HPV in the etiology of human cancer. Vaccine. 2006;24 (Suppl 3):S1–S10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Myers, ER, McCrory, DC, Nanda, K, Bastian, L, Matchar, DB. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151:1158–1171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Newall, AT, Beutels, P, Wood, JG, Edmunds, WJ, MacIntyre, CR. Cost-effectiveness analyses of human papillomavirus vaccination. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7:289–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Parkin, DM, Bray, F. Chapter 2: The burden of HPV-related cancers. Vaccine. 2006;24 (Suppl 3):S11–S25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Rogoza, RM, Ferko, N, Bentley, J, et al. Optimization of primary and secondary cervical cancer prevention strategies in an era of cervical cancer vaccination: A multi-regional health economic analysis. Vaccine. 2008;26 (Suppl 5):F46–F58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Sanders, GD, Taira, AV. Cost-effectiveness of a potential vaccine for human papillomavirus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:37–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Sanders, GD, Taira, AV. Cost effectiveness of a potential vaccine for human papillomavirus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:37–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Schiffman, M, Castle, PE, Jeronimo, J, Rodriguez, AC, Wacholder, S. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet. 2007;370:890–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Stratton, KR, Durch, JS, Lawrence, RS. Vaccines for the 21st century a tool for decision making. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2000.Google Scholar
32. Techakehakij, W, Feldman, RD. Cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination compared with Pap smear screening on a national scale: A literature review. Vaccine. 2008;26:6258–6265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Van de Velde, N, Brisson, M, Boily, M-C. Modeling human papillomavirus vaccine effectiveness: Quantifying the impact of parameter uncertainty. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165:762–775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Wheeler, CM, Dennis, JM. Clinical aspects and epidemiology of HPV infections. Perspectives in medical virology. vol. 8. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2002:1–29.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sopina Supplementary Figure

Supplementary Figure 1: Markov Model for the natural history of HPV. Boxes represent health states; arrows represent possible transitions between the states.

Download Sopina Supplementary Figure(File)
File 98.3 KB