Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Selecting a Mix of Prevention Strategies against Cervical Cancer for Maximum Efficiency with an Optimization Program

Contents:

Author Info

  • Nadia Demarteau

    (Health Economics, Global Vaccine Development, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Wavre, Belgium)

  • Thomas Breuer

    (Global Vaccine Development, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Wavre, Belgium)

  • Baudouin Standaert

    (Health Economics, Global Vaccine Development, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Wavre, Belgium)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Background:Background: Screening and vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) can protect against cervical cancer. Neither alone can provide 100% protection. Consequently it raises the important question about the most efficient combination of screening at specified time intervals and vaccination to prevent cervical cancer. Abstract: Objective:Objective: Our objective was to identify the mix of cervical cancer prevention strategies (screening and/or vaccination against HPV) that achieves maximum reduction in cancer cases within a fixed budget. Abstract: Methods:Methods: We assessed the optimal mix of strategies for the prevention of cervical cancer using an optimization program. The evaluation used two models. One was a Markov cohort model used as the evaluation model to estimate the costs and outcomes of 52 different prevention strategies. The other was an optimization model in which the results of each prevention strategy of the previous model were entered as input data. The latter model determined the combination of the different prevention options to minimize cervical cancer under budget, screening coverage and vaccination coverage constraints. We applied the model in two countries with different healthcare organizations, epidemiology, screening practices, resource settings and treatment costs: the UK and Brazil. 100 000 women aged 12 years and above across the whole population over a 1-year period at steady state were included. The intervention was papanicolaou (Pap) smear screening programmes and/or vaccination against HPV with the bivalent HPV 16/18 vaccine (Cervarix [Cervarix is a registered trademark of the GlaxoSmithKline group of companies]). The main outcome measures were optimal distribution of the population between different interventions (screening, vaccination, screening plus vaccination and no screening or vaccination) with the resulting number of cervical cancer and associated costs. Abstract: Results:Results: In the base-case analysis (- same budget as today), the optimal prevention strategy would be, after introducing vaccination with a coverage rate of 80% in girls aged 12 years and retaining screening coverage at pre-vaccination levels (65% in the UK, 50% in Brazil), to increase the screening interval to 6 years (from 3) in the UK and to 5 years (from 3) in Brazil. This would result in a reduction of cervical cancer by 41% in the UK and by 54% in Brazil from pre-vaccination levels with no budget increase. Sensitivity analysis shows that vaccination alone at 80% coverage with no screening would achieve a cervical cancer reduction rate of 20% in the UK and 43% in Brazil compared with the pre-vaccination situation with a budget reduction of 30% and 14%, respectively. In both countries, the sharp reduction in cervical cancer is seen when the vaccine coverage rate exceeds the maximum screening coverage rate, or when screening coverage rate exceeds the maximum vaccine coverage rate, while maintaining the budget. As with any model, there are limitations to the value of predictions depending upon the assumptions made in each model. Abstract: Conclusions:Conclusions: Spending the same budget that was used for screening and treatment of cervical cancer in the pre-vaccination era, results of the optimization program show that it would be possible to substantially reduce the number of cases by implementing an optimal combination of HPV vaccination (80% coverage) and screening at pre-vaccination coverage (65% UK, 50% Brazil) while extending the screening interval to every 6 years in the UK and 5 years in Brazil.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/pec/pdfhandler.00019053-201230040-00005.pdf
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL: http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/pec/fulltext.00019053-201230040-00005.htm
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

    Volume (Year): 30 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 4 ()
    Pages: 337-353

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:4:p:337-353

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com/

    Related research

    Keywords: Budget-impact-analysis; Cervical-cancer; Cervical-smear; Cost-effectiveness; Human-papillomavirus-infections; Modelling; Papillomavirus-vaccines Screening.;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:4:p:337-353. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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