or search on
|Title:||Will cervical screening remain cost-effective in women offered the next generation nonavalent HPV vaccine? Results for four developed countries|
|Authors:||Simms KT; Smith MA; Lew JB; Kitchener HC; Castle PE; Canfell K|
|Categories:||Cancer Control, Survivorship, and Outcomes Research - Health Services, Economic and Health Policy Analyses|
Cancer Type - Cervical Cancer
Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis - Technology and/or Marker Testing in a Clinical Setting
|Journal Title:||International Journal of Cancer|
|Page number start:||2771|
|Page number end:||2780|
|Abstract:||A next generation nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine ("HPV9 vaccine") is being introduced in several countries. The aims of this study were to evaluate whether cervical screening will remain cost-effective in cohorts offered nonavalent vaccines and if so, to characterize the optimal number of screening tests. We used a dynamic model of HPV vaccination and cervical screening to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of strategies involving varying numbers of primary HPV tests per lifetime for cohorts offered the nonavalent vaccine as 12 year-olds. For each of four countries-the USA, New Zealand (NZ), Australia and England-we considered local factors including vaccine uptake rates (USA/NZ uptake ∼50%; Australia/England uptake >70%), attributable fractions of HPV9-included types, demographic factors, costs and indicative willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Extensive probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. We found that, in the USA, four screens per lifetime was the most likely scenario, with 34% probability of being optimal at WTP US$50,000/LYS, increasing to 84% probability at US$100,000/LYS. In New Zealand, five screens per lifetime was the most likely scenario, with 100% probability of being optimal at NZ$42,000/LYS, given the assumptions used. In Australia, two screens per lifetime was the most likely scenario, with 62% probability of being optimal at AU$50,000/LYS. In England, four screens per lifetime was the most likely scenario, with 32% probability of being optimal at GB£20,000/LYS, increasing to 96% probability at GB£30,000/LYS. We conclude that some cervical screening will remain cost-effective, even in countries with high vaccination coverage. However, the optimal number of screens may vary between countries.|
|Division:||Cancer Research Division|
|Funding Body:||National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australia. KC is supported by a NHMRC Career Development Fellowship Grant (number AP1082989).|
APP1082989 (salary support for KC).
|Appears in Collections:||Research Articles|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.