Cost effectiveness of strategies for cervical cancer prevention in India.
Adult
Aged
Cost-Benefit Analysis
DNA, Viral
/ analysis
Female
Human papillomavirus 16
/ genetics
Human papillomavirus 18
/ genetics
Humans
India
/ epidemiology
Markov Chains
Mass Screening
/ economics
Middle Aged
Papanicolaou Test
/ economics
Papillomavirus Infections
/ diagnosis
Quality of Life
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ economics
Vaccination
Young Adult
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
08
07
2019
accepted:
13
08
2020
entrez:
2
9
2020
pubmed:
2
9
2020
medline:
29
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The establishment of link between high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and occurrence of cervical cancer has resulted in development of various HPV related control strategies for the prevention of cervical cancer. The objective of the present study was to assess the cost effectiveness of various screening strategies for cervical cancer and human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination in India. A Markov model based on societal perspective was designed to estimate the lifetime costs and consequences of screening (with either visual inspect with acetic acid (VIA), Papanicolaou test or HPV DNA test at various time intervals) in a hypothetical cohort of 30-65 years age women or vaccination among adolescent girls. Diagnostic accuracy of the screening strategies, efficacy of HPV vaccination and data on transition probabilities was based on the results of the existing meta-analyses. Primary data was collected for assessing per person cost of screening, cost of treating cervical cancer and quality of life. We found that introduction of different screening strategies leads to reduction in lifetime occurrence of cervical cancer cases caused by HPV 16/18 from 20% to 61%, and cervical cancer deaths from 28% to 70%, as compared to no screening. Among various screening strategies, screening with both VIA 5 yearly and VIA 10 yearly came out to be cost effective at 1-time per capita GDP, with VIA every 5 years providing greater health benefits as compared to VIA 10 years. Hence, screening with VIA 5 years at an incremental cost of US$ 829 (INR 54,881) per QALY gained is the recommended strategy for India. Further, with regards to HPV vaccination, it leads to 60% reduction in cancer cases and mortality caused by HPV 16/18 as compared to no vaccination. Moreover, when this vaccinated cohort of adolescent girls is also screened later in their life (with VIA every 10 years and VIA 5 years), it leads to 69%-76% reduction in cancer cases and 71%-81% reduction in cancer deaths. As compared to no vaccination and no screening, both HPV vaccination alone and vaccination plus screening (with VIA every 5 yearly and VIA 10 yearly) appears to be cost effective with ICERs in the range of US$ 86 (INR 5,693) to US$ 476 (INR 31,511) per QALY gained. In the long run, when the cohort of adolescent girls, who were immunized for HPV, reach the age of 30 years, the screening frequency using VIA should be determined based on the coverage of HPV vaccination in that cohort.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32870941
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238291
pii: PONE-D-19-19181
pmc: PMC7462298
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0238291Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 Sep;29(9):781-806
pubmed: 21838332
N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 2;360(14):1385-94
pubmed: 19339719
N Engl J Med. 1998 Feb 12;338(7):423-8
pubmed: 9459645
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Aug;19(8):1893-907
pubmed: 20647400
Int J Cancer. 2005 Dec 20;117(6):981-7
pubmed: 16003735
Int J Cancer. 2017 Aug 1;141(3):437-446
pubmed: 28297074
Eur J Cancer. 2011 Jul;47(11):1633-46
pubmed: 21482103
Vaccine. 2012 Nov 20;30 Suppl 5:F123-38
pubmed: 23199956
Health Econ. 2009 Oct;18(10):1188-201
pubmed: 19097041
Int J Cancer. 2013 Apr 1;132(7):1693-9
pubmed: 22907663
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2020 Sep 01;21(9):2639-2646
pubmed: 32986363
Cancer. 2017 Sep 1;123(17):3253-3260
pubmed: 28472550
Inj Prev. 2000 Sep;6(3):177-9
pubmed: 11003181
Am J Epidemiol. 2000 Jun 15;151(12):1158-71
pubmed: 10905528
Acta Cytol. 2005 Jul-Aug;49(4):405-15
pubmed: 16124170
Int J Cancer. 2005 Sep 10;116(4):617-23
pubmed: 15818610
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. ;17(11):4837-4844
pubmed: 28030908
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2003;(31):14-9
pubmed: 12807940
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 11;13(1):e0191132
pubmed: 29324861
Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Jul 15;166(2):137-50
pubmed: 17526866
Med Decis Making. 1985 Summer;5(2):157-77
pubmed: 3831638
J Glob Oncol. 2018 Sep;4:1-4
pubmed: 30241163
N Engl J Med. 2005 Nov 17;353(20):2158-68
pubmed: 16291985
Br J Cancer. 2008 Jul 22;99(2):230-8
pubmed: 18612311
J Glob Oncol. 2018 Jul;4:1-15
pubmed: 30085891
Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2016 Oct-Dec;37(4):278-285
pubmed: 28144096
Int J Cancer. 2019 Apr 15;144(8):1941-1953
pubmed: 30350310
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):67-77
pubmed: 26652797
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016 Mar;132(3):259-65
pubmed: 26851054
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 1999 Oct;6(4):223-33
pubmed: 10572472
Lancet. 2007 Aug 4;370(9585):398-406
pubmed: 17679017
Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Oct;92(4 Pt 2):727-35
pubmed: 9764690
BMJ. 2006 Jan 14;332(7533):79-85
pubmed: 16399769