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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |