Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Vaccine. 2016 Apr 7;34(16):1936-44. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.02.016. Epub 2016 Feb 15.

The cost-utility of integrated cervical cancer prevention strategies in the Ontario setting - Can we do better?

Author information

  • 1Public Health Ontario, Canada; University of Toronto, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, Canada. Electronic address: beate.sander@oahpp.ca.
  • 2University of Toronto, Canada; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, Canada.
  • 3Public Health Ontario, Canada.
  • 4Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, Canada.
  • 5Cancer Care Ontario, Canada.
  • 6University of Toronto, Canada; Cancer Care Ontario, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
  • 7University of Toronto, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, Canada; University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
  • 8Public Health Ontario, Canada; University of Toronto, Canada.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

A universal, publicly funded, school-based human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program in grade eight girls was initiated in Ontario in 2007. We present a cost-utility analysis of integrated cervical cancer prevention programs from the healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS:

Our analysis was based on linked HPV transmission and disease history models. We obtained data from the literature, provincial surveys and Ontario population-based linked health administrative datasets. We modeled combinations of vaccination and screening strategies. We considered vaccination based on the Ontario experience, as well as conservative and optimistic scenarios, varying coverage, vaccine effectiveness and duration of protection. We considered 900 screening scenarios (screening start age: 21-70 years, screening interval: 3-20 years; 1-year time steps). The current schedule screens every 3 years starting at age 21 years. We examined (1) first vaccinated cohort (low herd-immunity), and (2) steady state, i.e. all cohorts were vaccinated (high herd-immunity).

RESULTS:

Adding vaccination to the current screening schedule was cost-effective (<C$10,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY)) across all scenarios. Delaying screening start and/or extending screening intervals increased both expected QALYs and cost, and increased overall NHB for screening schedules with a start age of 25-35 years and 3-10-year intervals for most scenarios.

CONCLUSION:

Delaying screening start age and/or extending screening intervals in vaccinated cohorts is likely to be cost-effective. Consideration should be given to both the short- and long-term implications of health policy decisions, particularly for infectious disease interventions that require long time intervals to reach steady state.

KEYWORDS:

Cervical cancer; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Human papilloma virus; Screening; Vaccination

PMID:
26892739
DOI:
10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.02.016
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center