IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v29y2011i9p781-806.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Evaluation of Policy Options for Prevention and Control of Cervical Cancer in Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Naiyana Praditsitthikorn
  • Yot Teerawattananon
  • Sripen Tantivess
  • Supon Limwattananon
  • Arthorn Riewpaiboon
  • Saibua Chichareon
  • Nantakan Ieumwananonthachai
  • Viroj Tangcharoensathien

Abstract

Background: The Thai healthcare setting has seen patients with cervical cancer experience an increasing burden of morbidity and mortality, a stagnation in the performance of cervical screening programmes and the introduction of a vaccine for the prevention of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Objective: This study aims to identify the optimum mix of interventions that are cost effective, from societal and healthcare provider perspectives, for the prevention and control of cervical cancer. Methods: A computer-based Markov model of the natural history of cervical cancer was used to simulate an age-stratified cohort of women in Thailand. The strategy comparators, including both control and prevention programmes, were (i) conventional cytology screening (Pap smears); (ii) screening by visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA); and (iii) HPV-16, -18 vaccination. Input parameters (e.g. age-specific incidence of HPV infection, progression and regression of the infection, test performance of screening methods and efficacy of vaccine) were synthesized from a systematic review and metaanalysis. Costs (year 2007 values) and outcomes were evaluated separately, and compared for each combination. The screening strategies were started from the age of 30–40 years and repeated at 5- and 10-year intervals. In addition, HPV vaccines were introduced at age 1560 years. Results: All of the screening strategies showed certain benefits due to a decreased number of women developing cervical cancer versus no intervention. Moreover, the most cost-effective strategy from the societal perspective was the combination of VIA and sequential Pap smear (i.e. VIA every 5 years for women aged 3045 years, followed by Pap smear every 5 years for women aged 5060 years). This strategy was dominant, with a QALY gain of 0.01 and a total cost saving of Baht (Bt)800, compared with doing nothing. From the societal perspective, universal HPV vaccination for girls aged 15 years without screening resulted in a QALY gain of 0.06 at an additional cost of Bt8800, based on the cost of Bt15 000 for a full immunization schedule. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing HPV vaccinations for girls aged 15 years with the current national policy of Pap smears for women aged 3560 years every 5 years, was approximately Bt181 000 per QALY gained. This figure was relatively high for the Thai setting. Conclusions: The results suggest that controlling cervical cancer by increasing the numbers of women accepting the VIA and Pap smear screening as routine and by improving the performance of the existing screening programmes is the most cost-effective policy option in Thailand. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2011

Suggested Citation

  • Naiyana Praditsitthikorn & Yot Teerawattananon & Sripen Tantivess & Supon Limwattananon & Arthorn Riewpaiboon & Saibua Chichareon & Nantakan Ieumwananonthachai & Viroj Tangcharoensathien, 2011. "Economic Evaluation of Policy Options for Prevention and Control of Cervical Cancer in Thailand," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(9), pages 781-806, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:29:y:2011:i:9:p:781-806
    DOI: 10.2165/11586560-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11586560-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11586560-000000000-00000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    2. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    3. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yot Teerawattananon & Pritaporn Kingkaew & Tanunya Koopitakkajorn & Sitaporn Youngkong & Nattha Tritasavit & Patsri Srisuwan & Sripen Tantivess, 2016. "Development of a Health Screening Package Under the Universal Health Coverage: The Role of Health Technology Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 162-178, February.
    2. Elizabeth Roger & Oguchi Nwosu, 2014. "Diagnosing Cervical Dysplasia Using Visual Inspection of the Cervix with Acetic Acid in a Woman in Rural Haiti," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-8, November.
    3. Didik Setiawan & Nikolaos Kotsopoulos & Jan C Wilschut & Maarten J Postma & Mark P Connolly, 2016. "Assessment of the Broader Economic Consequences of HPV Prevention from a Government-Perspective: A Fiscal Analytic Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-12, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Georgia Kourlaba & Vassilis Fragoulakis & Nikos Maniadakis, 2012. "Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients with Atherothrombosis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(5), pages 331-342, September.
    2. Kasper M. Johannesen & Karl Claxton & Mark J. Sculpher & Allan J. Wailoo, 2018. "How to design the cost‐effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies to maximise population health: A conceptual framework," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 41-54, February.
    3. Georgia Kourlaba & Vassilis Fragoulakis & Nikos Maniadakis, 2012. "Economic Evaluation of Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients without ST-Segment Elevation in Greece," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 261-271, July.
    4. Henry Glick, 2011. "Sample Size and Power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Part 1)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 189-198, March.
    5. Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2017. "Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 301-324, April.
    6. Mattias Ekman & Peter Lindgren & Carolin Miltenburger & Genevieve Meier & Julie Locklear & Mary Chatterton, 2012. "Cost Effectiveness of Quetiapine in Patients with Acute Bipolar Depression and in Maintenance Treatment after an Acute Depressive Episode," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 513-530, June.
    7. Wei Yang & Heather Gage & Daniel Jackson & Monique Raats, 2018. "The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of plant sterol or stanol-enriched functional foods as a primary prevention strategy for people with cardiovascular disease risk in England: a modeling study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(7), pages 909-922, September.
    8. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    9. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    10. Kaitlyn Hastings & Clara Marquina & Jedidiah Morton & Dina Abushanab & Danielle Berkovic & Stella Talic & Ella Zomer & Danny Liew & Zanfina Ademi, 2022. "Projected New-Onset Cardiovascular Disease by Socioeconomic Group in Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 449-460, April.
    11. Andrea Marcellusi & Raffaella Viti & Loreta A. Kondili & Stefano Rosato & Stefano Vella & Francesco Saverio Mennini, 2019. "Economic Consequences of Investing in Anti-HCV Antiviral Treatment from the Italian NHS Perspective: A Real-World-Based Analysis of PITER Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 255-266, February.
    12. Risha Gidwani & Louise B. Russell, 2020. "Estimating Transition Probabilities from Published Evidence: A Tutorial for Decision Modelers," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(11), pages 1153-1164, November.
    13. Joseph F. Levy & Marjorie A. Rosenberg, 2019. "A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Trajectories of Health Care Cost in Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(5), pages 593-604, July.
    14. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    15. Thomas Reinhold & Claudia Witt & Susanne Jena & Benno Brinkhaus & Stefan Willich, 2008. "Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture treatment in patients with osteoarthritis pain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 209-219, August.
    16. Jorge Luis García & James J. Heckman, 2021. "Early childhood education and life‐cycle health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(S1), pages 119-141, November.
    17. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Tushar Srivastava & Nicholas R. Latimer & Paul Tappenden, 2021. "Estimation of Transition Probabilities for State-Transition Models: A Review of NICE Appraisals," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(8), pages 869-878, August.
    19. Eleanor Heather & Katherine Payne & Mark Harrison & Deborah Symmons, 2014. "Including Adverse Drug Events in Economic Evaluations of Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Drugs for Adult Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review of Economic Decision Analytic Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 109-134, February.
    20. Manuel Gomes & Robert Aldridge & Peter Wylie & James Bell & Owen Epstein, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 3-D Computerized Tomography Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy for Imaging Symptomatic Gastroenterology Patients," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 107-117, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:pharme:v:29:y:2011:i:9:p:781-806. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.