Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of screening for anal cancer using regular digital ano-rectal examinations in men who have sex with men living with HIV

INTRODUCTION: Anal cancer in men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV is an important issue but there are no consistent guidelines for how to screen for this cancer. In settings where screening with anal cytology is unavailable, regular anal examinations have been proposed in some guidelines...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ong, Jason J, Fairley, Christopher K, Carroll, Susan, Walker, Sandra, Chen, Marcus, Read, Tim, Grulich, Andrew, Bradshaw, Catriona, Kaldor, John, Clarke, Philip
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International AIDS Society 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4778406/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26942721
http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.19.1.20514
_version_ 1782419458864709632
author Ong, Jason J
Fairley, Christopher K
Carroll, Susan
Walker, Sandra
Chen, Marcus
Read, Tim
Grulich, Andrew
Bradshaw, Catriona
Kaldor, John
Clarke, Philip
author_facet Ong, Jason J
Fairley, Christopher K
Carroll, Susan
Walker, Sandra
Chen, Marcus
Read, Tim
Grulich, Andrew
Bradshaw, Catriona
Kaldor, John
Clarke, Philip
author_sort Ong, Jason J
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Anal cancer in men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV is an important issue but there are no consistent guidelines for how to screen for this cancer. In settings where screening with anal cytology is unavailable, regular anal examinations have been proposed in some guidelines but their cost-effectiveness is unknown. METHODS: Our objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of regular anal examinations to screen for anal cancer in HIV-positive MSM living in Australia using a probabilistic Markov model. Data sources were based on the medical literature and a clinical trial of HIV-positive MSM receiving an annual anal examination in Australia. The main outcome measures for calculating effectiveness were undiscounted and discounted (at 3%) lifetime costs, life years gained, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Base-case analysis estimated the average cost of screening for and management of anal cancer ranged from $195 for no screening to $1,915 for lifetime annual screening of men aged ≥ 50. Screening of men aged ≥ 50 generated ICERs of $29,760 per QALY gained (for screening every four years), $32,222 (every three years) and $45,484 (every two years). Uncertainty for ICERs was mostly influenced by the cost (financially and decrease in quality of life) from a false-positive result, progression rate of anal cancer, specificity of the anal examination, the probability of detection outside a screening program and the discount rate. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for anal cancer by incorporating regular anal examinations into routine HIV care for MSM aged ≥ 50 is most likely to be cost-effective by conventional standards. Given that anal pap smears are not widely available yet in many clinical settings, regular anal exams for MSM living with HIV to detect anal cancer earlier should be implemented.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4778406
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher International AIDS Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47784062016-03-04 Cost-effectiveness of screening for anal cancer using regular digital ano-rectal examinations in men who have sex with men living with HIV Ong, Jason J Fairley, Christopher K Carroll, Susan Walker, Sandra Chen, Marcus Read, Tim Grulich, Andrew Bradshaw, Catriona Kaldor, John Clarke, Philip J Int AIDS Soc Research Article INTRODUCTION: Anal cancer in men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV is an important issue but there are no consistent guidelines for how to screen for this cancer. In settings where screening with anal cytology is unavailable, regular anal examinations have been proposed in some guidelines but their cost-effectiveness is unknown. METHODS: Our objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of regular anal examinations to screen for anal cancer in HIV-positive MSM living in Australia using a probabilistic Markov model. Data sources were based on the medical literature and a clinical trial of HIV-positive MSM receiving an annual anal examination in Australia. The main outcome measures for calculating effectiveness were undiscounted and discounted (at 3%) lifetime costs, life years gained, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Base-case analysis estimated the average cost of screening for and management of anal cancer ranged from $195 for no screening to $1,915 for lifetime annual screening of men aged ≥ 50. Screening of men aged ≥ 50 generated ICERs of $29,760 per QALY gained (for screening every four years), $32,222 (every three years) and $45,484 (every two years). Uncertainty for ICERs was mostly influenced by the cost (financially and decrease in quality of life) from a false-positive result, progression rate of anal cancer, specificity of the anal examination, the probability of detection outside a screening program and the discount rate. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for anal cancer by incorporating regular anal examinations into routine HIV care for MSM aged ≥ 50 is most likely to be cost-effective by conventional standards. Given that anal pap smears are not widely available yet in many clinical settings, regular anal exams for MSM living with HIV to detect anal cancer earlier should be implemented. International AIDS Society 2016-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4778406/ /pubmed/26942721 http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.19.1.20514 Text en © 2016 Ong JJ et al; licensee International AIDS Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ong, Jason J
Fairley, Christopher K
Carroll, Susan
Walker, Sandra
Chen, Marcus
Read, Tim
Grulich, Andrew
Bradshaw, Catriona
Kaldor, John
Clarke, Philip
Cost-effectiveness of screening for anal cancer using regular digital ano-rectal examinations in men who have sex with men living with HIV
title Cost-effectiveness of screening for anal cancer using regular digital ano-rectal examinations in men who have sex with men living with HIV
title_full Cost-effectiveness of screening for anal cancer using regular digital ano-rectal examinations in men who have sex with men living with HIV
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of screening for anal cancer using regular digital ano-rectal examinations in men who have sex with men living with HIV
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of screening for anal cancer using regular digital ano-rectal examinations in men who have sex with men living with HIV
title_short Cost-effectiveness of screening for anal cancer using regular digital ano-rectal examinations in men who have sex with men living with HIV
title_sort cost-effectiveness of screening for anal cancer using regular digital ano-rectal examinations in men who have sex with men living with hiv
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4778406/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26942721
http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.19.1.20514
work_keys_str_mv AT ongjasonj costeffectivenessofscreeningforanalcancerusingregulardigitalanorectalexaminationsinmenwhohavesexwithmenlivingwithhiv
AT fairleychristopherk costeffectivenessofscreeningforanalcancerusingregulardigitalanorectalexaminationsinmenwhohavesexwithmenlivingwithhiv
AT carrollsusan costeffectivenessofscreeningforanalcancerusingregulardigitalanorectalexaminationsinmenwhohavesexwithmenlivingwithhiv
AT walkersandra costeffectivenessofscreeningforanalcancerusingregulardigitalanorectalexaminationsinmenwhohavesexwithmenlivingwithhiv
AT chenmarcus costeffectivenessofscreeningforanalcancerusingregulardigitalanorectalexaminationsinmenwhohavesexwithmenlivingwithhiv
AT readtim costeffectivenessofscreeningforanalcancerusingregulardigitalanorectalexaminationsinmenwhohavesexwithmenlivingwithhiv
AT grulichandrew costeffectivenessofscreeningforanalcancerusingregulardigitalanorectalexaminationsinmenwhohavesexwithmenlivingwithhiv
AT bradshawcatriona costeffectivenessofscreeningforanalcancerusingregulardigitalanorectalexaminationsinmenwhohavesexwithmenlivingwithhiv
AT kaldorjohn costeffectivenessofscreeningforanalcancerusingregulardigitalanorectalexaminationsinmenwhohavesexwithmenlivingwithhiv
AT clarkephilip costeffectivenessofscreeningforanalcancerusingregulardigitalanorectalexaminationsinmenwhohavesexwithmenlivingwithhiv