Author
Listed:
- Diama Bhadra Vale
- Marcus Tolentino Silva
- Michelle Garcia Discacciati
- Ilana Polegatto
- Julio Cesar Teixeira
- Luiz Carlos Zeferino
Abstract
Objective: To report a modelling study using local health care costs and epidemiological inputs from a population-based program to access the cost-effectiveness of adopting hrHPV test. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on a microsimulation dynamic Markov model. Data and costs were based on data from the local setting and literature review. The setting was Indaiatuba, Brazil, that has adopted the hrHPV test in place of cytology since 2017. After calibrating the model, one million women were simulated in hypothetical cohorts. Three strategies were tested: cytology to women aged 25 to 64 every three years; hrHPV test to women 25–64 every five years; cytology to women 25–29 years every three years and hrHPV test to women 30–64 every five years (hybrid strategy). Outcomes were Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). Results: The hrHPV testing and the hybrid strategy were the dominant strategies. Costs were lower and provided a more effective option at a negative incremental ratio of US$ 37.87 for the hybrid strategy, and negative US$ 6.16 for the HPV strategy per QALY gained. Reduction on treatment costs would influence a decrease in ICER, and an increase in the costs of the hrHPV test would increase ICER. Conclusions: Using population-based data, the switch from cytology to hrHPV testing in the cervical cancer screening program of Indaiatuba is less costly and cost-effective than the old cytology program.
Suggested Citation
Diama Bhadra Vale & Marcus Tolentino Silva & Michelle Garcia Discacciati & Ilana Polegatto & Julio Cesar Teixeira & Luiz Carlos Zeferino, 2021.
"Is the HPV-test more cost-effective than cytology in cervical cancer screening? An economic analysis from a middle-income country,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-12, May.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0251688
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251688
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0251688. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.