Cargando…

Two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs and effects of three sampling strategies for human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening. DESIGN: Cost-consequence analysis from a health system perspective using a deterministic decision tree model. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 10 000 women aged 25–65...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huntington, Susie, Puri Sudhir, Krishnan, Schneider, Verena, Sargent, Alex, Turner, Katy, Crosbie, Emma J, Adams, Elisabeth J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10254906/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37280031
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068940
_version_ 1785056751979069440
author Huntington, Susie
Puri Sudhir, Krishnan
Schneider, Verena
Sargent, Alex
Turner, Katy
Crosbie, Emma J
Adams, Elisabeth J
author_facet Huntington, Susie
Puri Sudhir, Krishnan
Schneider, Verena
Sargent, Alex
Turner, Katy
Crosbie, Emma J
Adams, Elisabeth J
author_sort Huntington, Susie
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs and effects of three sampling strategies for human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening. DESIGN: Cost-consequence analysis from a health system perspective using a deterministic decision tree model. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 10 000 women aged 25–65 years eligible for the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP). METHODS: The model was based on the NHSCSP HPV primary screening pathway and adapted for self-sampling. It used a 3-year cycle: routine screening (year 1) and recall screening (years 2/3). Parameter inputs were informed using published studies, NHSCSP reports and input from experts and manufacturers. Costs were from 2020/2021, British pound sterling (£). INTERVENTIONS: Three sampling strategies were implemented: (1) routine clinician-collected cervical sample, (2) self-collected first-void (FV) urine, (3) self-collected vaginal swab. The hypothetical self-sampling strategies involved mailing women a sampling kit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes: overall costs (for all screening steps to colposcopy), number of complete screens and cost per complete screen. Secondary outcomes: number of women screened, number of women lost to follow-up, cost per colposcopy and total screening costs for a plausible range of uptake scenarios. RESULTS: In the base case, the average cost per complete screen was £56.81 for clinician-collected cervical sampling, £38.57 for FV urine self-sampling and £40.37 for vaginal self-sampling. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables most affecting the average cost per screen were the cost of sample collection for clinician-collected sampling and the cost of laboratory HPV testing for the self-sampling strategies. Scaled to consider routine screening in England, if uptake in non-attenders increased by 15% and 50% of current screeners converted to self-sampling, the NHSCSP would save £19.2 million (FV urine) or £16.5 million (vaginal) per year. CONCLUSION: Self-sampling could provide a less costly alternative to clinician-collected sampling for routine HPV primary screening and offers opportunities to expand the reach of cervical screening to under-screened women.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10254906
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102549062023-06-10 Two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation Huntington, Susie Puri Sudhir, Krishnan Schneider, Verena Sargent, Alex Turner, Katy Crosbie, Emma J Adams, Elisabeth J BMJ Open Health Economics OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs and effects of three sampling strategies for human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening. DESIGN: Cost-consequence analysis from a health system perspective using a deterministic decision tree model. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 10 000 women aged 25–65 years eligible for the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP). METHODS: The model was based on the NHSCSP HPV primary screening pathway and adapted for self-sampling. It used a 3-year cycle: routine screening (year 1) and recall screening (years 2/3). Parameter inputs were informed using published studies, NHSCSP reports and input from experts and manufacturers. Costs were from 2020/2021, British pound sterling (£). INTERVENTIONS: Three sampling strategies were implemented: (1) routine clinician-collected cervical sample, (2) self-collected first-void (FV) urine, (3) self-collected vaginal swab. The hypothetical self-sampling strategies involved mailing women a sampling kit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes: overall costs (for all screening steps to colposcopy), number of complete screens and cost per complete screen. Secondary outcomes: number of women screened, number of women lost to follow-up, cost per colposcopy and total screening costs for a plausible range of uptake scenarios. RESULTS: In the base case, the average cost per complete screen was £56.81 for clinician-collected cervical sampling, £38.57 for FV urine self-sampling and £40.37 for vaginal self-sampling. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables most affecting the average cost per screen were the cost of sample collection for clinician-collected sampling and the cost of laboratory HPV testing for the self-sampling strategies. Scaled to consider routine screening in England, if uptake in non-attenders increased by 15% and 50% of current screeners converted to self-sampling, the NHSCSP would save £19.2 million (FV urine) or £16.5 million (vaginal) per year. CONCLUSION: Self-sampling could provide a less costly alternative to clinician-collected sampling for routine HPV primary screening and offers opportunities to expand the reach of cervical screening to under-screened women. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-06-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10254906/ /pubmed/37280031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068940 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Health Economics
Huntington, Susie
Puri Sudhir, Krishnan
Schneider, Verena
Sargent, Alex
Turner, Katy
Crosbie, Emma J
Adams, Elisabeth J
Two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation
title Two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation
title_full Two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation
title_fullStr Two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation
title_short Two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation
title_sort two self-sampling strategies for hpv primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation
topic Health Economics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10254906/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37280031
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068940
work_keys_str_mv AT huntingtonsusie twoselfsamplingstrategiesforhpvprimarycervicalcancerscreeningcomparedwithcliniciancollectedsamplinganeconomicevaluation
AT purisudhirkrishnan twoselfsamplingstrategiesforhpvprimarycervicalcancerscreeningcomparedwithcliniciancollectedsamplinganeconomicevaluation
AT schneiderverena twoselfsamplingstrategiesforhpvprimarycervicalcancerscreeningcomparedwithcliniciancollectedsamplinganeconomicevaluation
AT sargentalex twoselfsamplingstrategiesforhpvprimarycervicalcancerscreeningcomparedwithcliniciancollectedsamplinganeconomicevaluation
AT turnerkaty twoselfsamplingstrategiesforhpvprimarycervicalcancerscreeningcomparedwithcliniciancollectedsamplinganeconomicevaluation
AT crosbieemmaj twoselfsamplingstrategiesforhpvprimarycervicalcancerscreeningcomparedwithcliniciancollectedsamplinganeconomicevaluation
AT adamselisabethj twoselfsamplingstrategiesforhpvprimarycervicalcancerscreeningcomparedwithcliniciancollectedsamplinganeconomicevaluation