Cost-effectiveness of HPV-based cervical cancer screening in the public health system in Nicaragua. Issue 6 (15th June 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Campos, Nicole G; Mvundura, Mercy; Jeronimo, Jose; Holme, Francesca; Vodicka, Elisabeth; Kim, Jane J
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 7:Issue 6(2017)
• Publication Date: 2017-06-15
• Subjects: health economics -- epidemiology -- public health; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015048
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing (versus Papanicolaou (Pap)-based screening) for cervical cancer screening in Nicaragua. Design: A previously developed Monte Carlo simulation model of the natural history of HPV infection and cervical cancer was calibrated to epidemiological data from Nicaragua. Cost data inputs were derived using a micro-costing approach in Carazo, Chontales and Chinandega departments; test performance data were from a demonstration project in Masaya department. Setting: Nicaragua's public health sector facilities. Participants: Women aged 30–59 years. Interventions: Screening strategies included (1) Pap testing every 3 years, with referral to colposcopy for women with an atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse result ('Pap'); (2) HPV testing every 5 years, with referral to cryotherapy for HPV-positive eligible women (HPV cryotherapy or 'HPV-Cryo'); (3) HPV testing every 5 years, with referral to triage with visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) for HPV-positive women ('HPV-VIA'); and (4) HPV testing every 5 years, with referral to Pap testing for HPV-positive women ('HPV-Pap'). Outcome measures: Reduction in lifetime risk of cancer and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER; 2015 US$ per year of life saved (YLS)). Results: HPV-based screening strategies were more effective than Pap testing. HPV-Cryo was the least costly and most effective strategy, reducing lifetime cancer risk by 29.5% and outperforming HPV-VIA, HPV-Pap and Pap only, which reduced cancer risk by 19.4%, 12.2% and 10.8%, respectively. With an ICER of US$320/YLS, HPV-Cryo every 5 years would be very cost-effective using a threshold based on Nicaragua's per capita gross domestic product of US$2090. Findings were robust across sensitivity analyses on test performance, coverage, compliance and cost parameters. Conclusions: HPV testing is very cost-effective compared with Pap testing in Nicaragua, due to higher test sensitivity and the relatively lower number of visits required. Increasing compliance with recommended follow-up will further improve the health benefits and value for public health dollars.