The Spillover Effects of Extending Liver Transplantation to Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Discrete Event Simulation Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is an alternative treatment for patients with nonresectable colorectal cancer liver-only metastases (CRLM); however, the potential effects on wait-list time and life expectancy to other patients on the transplant waiting list have not been considered. We explored the potential effects of expanding liver transplantation eligibility to include patients with CRLM on wait-list time and life expectancy in Norway. METHODS: We developed a discrete event simulation model to reflect the Norwegian liver transplantation waiting list process and included 2 groups: 1) patients currently eligible for liver transplantation and 2) CRLM patients. Under 2 alternative CRLM-patient transplant eligibility criteria, we simulated 2 strategies: 1) inclusion of only currently eligible patients (CRLM patients received standard-of-care palliative chemotherapy) and 2) expanding waiting list eligibility to include CRLM patients under 2 eligibility criteria. Model outcomes included median waiting list time, life expectancy, and total life-years. RESULTS: For every additional CRLM patient listed per year, the overall median wait-list time, initially 52 d, increased by 8% to 11%. Adding 2 additional CRLM patients under the most restrictive eligibility criteria increased the CRLM patients' average life expectancy by 10.64 y and decreased the average life expectancy for currently eligible patients by 0.05 y. Under these assumptions, there was a net gain of 149.61 life-years over a 10-y programmatic period, which continued to increase under scenarios of adding 10 CRLM patients to the wait-list. Health gains were lower under less restrictive CRLM eligibility criteria. For example, adding 4 additional CRLM patients under the less restrictive eligibility criteria increased the CRLM patients' average life expectancy by 5.64 y and decreased the average life expectancy for currently eligible patients by 0.12 y. Under these assumptions, there was a net gain of 96.36 life-years over a 10-y programmatic period, which continued to increase up to 7 CRLM patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our model-based analysis enabled the consideration of the potential effects of enlisting Norwegian CRLM patients for liver transplantation on wait-list time and life expectancy. Enlisting CRLM patients is expected to increase the total health effects, which supports the implementation of liver transplantation for CRLM patients in Norway. HIGHLIGHTS: Given the Norwegian donor liver availability, adding patients with nonresectable colorectal cancer liver-only metastases (CRLM) to the liver transplantation waiting list had an overall modest, but varying, impact on total waiting list time.Survival gains for selected CRLM patients treated with liver transplantation would likely outweigh the losses incurred to patients listed currently.To improve the total life-years gained in the population, Norway should consider expanding the treatment options for CRLM patients to include liver transplantation.Other countries may also have an opportunity to gain total life-years by extending the waiting list eligibility criteria; however, country-specific analyses are required.

Sociodemographic characteristics associated with cervical cancer screening participation by send-to-all and opt-in HPV self-sampling: Who benefits? Results from a randomized controlled trial among long-term non-attending women in Norway.

With the objective to investigate associations between sociodemographic characteristics and participation in interventions designed to increase participation in cervical cancer screening among under-screened women, we randomized a random sample of 6000 women in Norway aged 35-69 years who had not attended cervical screening for ≥10 years to receive either (i) a reminder to attend regular screening (control), (ii) an offer to order a self-sampling kit (opt-in), or (iii) a self-sampling kit unsolicited (send-to-all). We analyzed how sociodemographic characteristics were associated with screening participation within and between screening arms. In the send-to-all arm, increased screening participation ranged from 17.1% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 10.3% to 23.8%) to 30.0% (95% CI = 21.5% to 38.6%) between sociodemographic groups. In the opt-in arm, we observed smaller, and at times, non-significant increases within the range 0.7% (95% CI = -5.8% to 7.3%) to 19.1% (95% CI = 11.6% to 26.7%). In send-to-all versus control comparisons, there was greater increase in participation for women in the workforce versus not (6.1%, 95% CI = 1.6% to 10.6%), with higher versus lower income (7.6%, 95% CI = 2.2% to 13.1%), and with university versus primary education (8.5%, 95% CI = 2.4% to 14.6%). In opt-in versus control comparisons, there was greater increase in participation for women in the workforce versus not (4.6%, 95% CI = 0.7% to 8.5%), with higher versus lower income (6.3%, 95% CI = 1.5% to 11.1%), but lower increase for Eastern European versus Norwegian background (-12.7%, 95% CI = -19.7% to -5.7%). Self-sampling increased cervical screening participation across all sociodemographic levels, but inequalities in participation should be considered when introducing self-sampling, especially with the goal to reach long-term non-attending women.

Healthcare use and costs in the last six months of life by level of care and cause of death.

BACKGROUND: Existing knowledge on healthcare use and costs in the last months of life is often limited to one patient group (i.e., cancer patients) and one level of healthcare (i.e., secondary care). Consequently, decision-makers lack knowledge in order to make informed decisions about the allocation of healthcare resources for all patients. Our aim is to elaborate the understanding of resource use and costs in the last six months of life by describing healthcare use and costs for all causes of death and by all levels of formal care. METHOD: Using five national registers, we gained access to patient-level data for all individuals who died in Norway between 2009 and 2013. We described healthcare use and costs for all levels of formal care-namely primary, secondary, and home- and community-based care -in the last six months of life, both in total and differentiated across three time periods (6-4 months, 3-2 months, and 1-month before death). Our analysis covers all causes of death categorized in ten ICD-10 categories. RESULTS: During their last six months of life, individuals used an average of healthcare resources equivalent to €46,000, ranging from €32,000 (Injuries) to €64,000 (Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs). In terms of care level, 63% of healthcare resources were used in home- and community-based care (i.e., in-home nursing, practical assistance, or nursing home care), 35% in secondary care (mostly hospital care), and 2% in primary care (i.e., general practitioners). The amount and level of care varied by cause of death and by time to death. The proportion of home- and community-based care which individuals received during their last six months of life varied from 38% for cancer patients to 92% for individuals dying with mental diseases. The shorter the time to death, the more resources were needed: nearly 40% of all end-of-life healthcare costs were expended in the last month of life across all causes of death. The composition of care also differed depending on age. Individuals aged 80 years and older used more home- and community-based care (77%) than individuals dying at younger ages (40%) and less secondary care (old: 21% versus young: 57%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis provides valuable evidence on how much healthcare individuals receive in their last six months of life and the associated costs, broken down by level of care and cause of death. Healthcare use and costs varied considerably by cause of death, but were generally higher the closer a person was to death. Our findings enable decision-makers to make more informed resource-allocation decisions and healthcare planners to better anticipate future healthcare needs.

Exploring Structural Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Gestational Diabetes Screening: An Application Example from Norway.

BACKGROUND: Screening pregnant women for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has recently been expanded in Norway, although screening eligibility criteria continue to be debated. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative GDM screening strategies and explored structural uncertainty and the value of future research in determining the most cost-effective eligibility criteria for GDM screening in Norway. DESIGN: We developed a probabilistic decision tree to estimate the total costs and health benefits (i.e., quality-adjusted life-years; QALYs) associated with 4 GDM screening strategies (universal, current guidelines, high-risk, and no screening). We identified the most cost-effective strategy as the strategy with the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below a Norwegian benchmark for cost-effectiveness ($28,400/QALY). We excluded inconclusive evidence on the effects of screening on later maternal type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the primary analysis but included this outcome in a secondary analysis using 2 different sources of evidence (i.e., Cochrane or US Preventive Services Task Force). To quantify decision uncertainty, we conducted scenario analysis and value-of-information analyses. RESULTS: Current screening recommendations were considered inefficient in all analyses, while universal screening was most cost-effective in our primary analysis ($26,014/QALY gained) and remained most cost-effective when we assumed a preventive effect of GDM treatment on T2DM. When we assumed no preventive effect, high-risk screening was preferred ($19,115/QALY gained). When we assumed GDM screening does not prevent perinatal death in scenario analysis, all strategies except no screening exceeded the cost-effectiveness benchmark. In most analyses, decision uncertainty was high. CONCLUSIONS: The most cost-effective screening strategy, ranging from no screening to universal screening, depended on the source and inclusion of GDM treatment effects on perinatal death and T2DM. Further research on these long-term outcomes could reduce decision uncertainty. HIGHLIGHTS: This article analyses the cost-effectiveness of 4 alternative gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening strategies in Norway: universal screening, current (broad) screening, high-risk screening, and no screening.The current Norwegian screening recommendations were considered inefficient under all analyses.The most cost-effective screening strategy ranged from no screening to universal screening depending on the source and inclusion of GDM treatment effects on later maternal diabetes and perinatal death.The parameters related to later maternal diabetes and perinatal death accounted for most of the decision uncertainty.

Vaccination and screening strategies to accelerate cervical cancer elimination in Norway: a model-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Experts have proposed an 'EVEN FASTER' concept targeting age-groups maintaining circulation of human papillomavirus (HPV). We explored effects of the vaccination component of these proposals compared with cervical cancer (CC) screening-based interventions on age-standardized incidence rate (ASR) and CC elimination (<4 cases/100,000) timing in Norway. METHODS: We used a model-based approach to evaluate HPV vaccination and CC screening scenarios compared with a status-quo scenario reflecting previous vaccination and screening. For cohorts ages 25-30 years, we examined 6 vaccination scenarios that incrementally increased vaccination coverage from current cohort-specific rates. Each vaccination scenario was coupled with three screening strategies that varied screening frequency. Additionally, we included 4 scenarios that alternatively increased screening adherence. Population- and cohort-level outcomes included ASR, lifetime risk of CC, and colposcopy referrals. RESULTS: Several vaccination strategies coupled with de-intensified screening frequencies lowered ASR, but did not accelerate CC elimination. Alternative strategies that increased screening adherence could both accelerate elimination and improve ASR. CONCLUSIONS: The vaccination component of an 'EVEN FASTER' campaign is unlikely to accelerate CC elimination in Norway but may reduce population-level ASR. Alternatively, targeting under- and never-screeners may both eliminate CC faster and lead to greater health benefits compared with vaccination-based interventions we considered.

Cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus triage approaches among vaccinated women in Norway: A model-based analysis.

As Norway considers revising triage approaches following their first adolescent cohort with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination entering the cervical cancer screening program, we analyzed the health impact and cost-effectiveness of alternative primary HPV triage approaches for women initiating cervical cancer screening in 2023. We used a multimodeling approach that captured HPV transmission and cervical carcinogenesis to evaluate the health benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of alternative extended genotyping and age-based triage strategies under five-yearly primary HPV testing (including the status-quo screening strategy in Norway) for women born in 1998 (ie, age 25 in 2023). We examined 35 strategies that varied alternative groupings of high-risk HPV genotypes ("high-risk" genotypes; "medium-risk" genotypes or "intermediate-risk" genotypes), number and types of HPV included in each group, management of HPV-positive women to direct colposcopy or active surveillance, wait time for re-testing and age at which the HPV triage algorithm switched from less to more intensive strategies. Given the range of benchmarks for severity-specific cost-effectiveness thresholds in Norway, we found that the preferred strategy for vaccinated women aged 25 years in 2023 involved an age-based switch from a less to more intensive follow-up algorithm at age 30 or 35 years with HPV-16/18 genotypes in the "high-risk" group. The two potentially cost-effective strategies could reduce the number of colposcopies compared to current guidelines and simultaneously improve health benefits. Using age to guide primary HPV triage, paired with selective HPV genotype and follow-up time for re-testing, could improve both the cervical cancer program effectiveness and efficiency.

A Guide to an Iterative Approach to Model-Based Decision Making in Health and Medicine: An Iterative Decision-Making Framework.

Decision makers frequently face decisions about optimal resource allocation. A model-based economic evaluation can be used to guide decision makers in their choices by systematically evaluating the magnitude of expected health effects and costs of decision options and by making trade-offs explicit. We provide a guide to an iterative approach to the medical decision-making process by following a coherent framework, and outline the overarching iterative steps of model-based decision making. We systematized the framework by performing three steps. First, we compiled the existing guidelines provided by the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force, and the ISPOR Value of Information Task Force. Second, we identified other previous work related to frameworks and guidelines for model-based decision analyses through a literature search in PubMed. Third, we assessed the role of the evidence and iterative process in decision making and formalized key steps in a model-based decision-making framework. We provide guidance on an iterative approach to medical decision making by applying the compiled iterative model-based decision-making framework. The framework formally combines the decision problem conceptualization (Part I), the model conceptualization and development (Part II), and the process of model-based decision analysis (Part III). Following the overarching steps of the framework ensures compliance to the principles of evidence-based medicine and regular updates of the evidence, given that value of information analysis represents an essential component of model-based decision analysis in the framework. Following the provided guide and the steps outlined in the framework can help inform various health care decisions, and therefore it has the potential to improve decision making.

Adapting a model of cervical carcinogenesis to self-identified Black women to evaluate racial disparities in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Self-identified Black women in the United States have higher cervical cancer incidence and mortality than the general population, but these differences have not been clearly attributed across described cancer care inequities. METHODS: A previously established microsimulation model of cervical cancer was adapted to reflect demographic, screening, and survival data for Black US women and compared with a model reflecting data for all US women. Each model input with stratified data (all-cause mortality, hysterectomy rates, screening frequency, screening modality, follow-up, and cancer survival) was sequentially replaced with Black-race specific data to arrive at a fully specified model reflecting Black women. At each step, we estimated the relative contribution of inputs to observed disparities. RESULTS: Estimated (hysterectomy-adjusted) cervical cancer incidence was 8.6 per 100 000 in the all-race model vs 10.8 per 100 000 in the Black-race model (relative risk [RR] = 1.24, range = 1.23-1.27). Estimated all-race cervical cancer mortality was 2.9 per 100 000 vs 5.5 per 100 000 in the Black-race model (RR = 1.92, range = 1.85-2.00). We found the largest contributors of incidence disparities were follow-up from positive screening results (47.3% of the total disparity) and screening frequency (32.7%). For mortality disparities, the largest contributor was cancer survival differences (70.1%) followed by screening follow-up (12.7%). CONCLUSION: To reduce disparities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality, it is important to understand and address differences in care access and quality across the continuum of care. Focusing on the practices and policies that drive differences in treatment and follow-up from cervical abnormalities may have the highest impact.

Global impact and cost-effectiveness of one-dose versus two-dose human papillomavirus vaccination schedules: a comparative modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: To eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, the World Health Organization had recommended routine vaccination of adolescent girls with two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine before sexual initiation. However, many countries have yet to implement HPV vaccination because of financial or logistical barriers to delivering two doses outside the infant immunisation programme. METHODS: Using three independent HPV transmission models, we estimated the long-term health benefits and cost-effectiveness of one-dose versus two-dose HPV vaccination, in 188 countries, under scenarios in which one dose of the vaccine gives either a shorter duration of full protection (20 or 30 years) or lifelong protection but lower vaccine efficacy (e.g. 80%) compared to two doses. We simulated routine vaccination with the 9-valent HPV vaccine in 10-year-old girls at 80% coverage for the years 2021-2120, with a 1-year catch-up campaign up to age 14 at 80% coverage in the first year of the programme. RESULTS: Over the years 2021-2120, one-dose vaccination at 80% coverage was projected to avert 115.2 million (range of medians: 85.1-130.4) and 146.8 million (114.1-161.6) cervical cancers assuming one dose of the vaccine confers 20 and 30 years of protection, respectively. Should one dose of the vaccine provide lifelong protection at 80% vaccine efficacy, 147.8 million (140.6-169.7) cervical cancer cases could be prevented. If protection wanes after 20 years, 65 to 889 additional girls would need to be vaccinated with the second dose to prevent one cervical cancer, depending on the epidemiological profiles of the country. Across all income groups, the threshold cost for the second dose was low: from 1.59 (0.14-3.82) USD in low-income countries to 44.83 (3.75-85.64) USD in high-income countries, assuming one dose confers 30-year protection. CONCLUSIONS: Results were consistent across the three independent models and suggest that one-dose vaccination has similar health benefits to a two-dose programme while simplifying vaccine delivery, reducing costs, and alleviating vaccine supply constraints. The second dose may become cost-effective if there is a shorter duration of protection from one dose, cheaper vaccine and vaccination delivery strategies, and high burden of cervical cancer.

Designing Guidelines for Those Who Do Not Follow Them: The Impact of Adherence Assumptions on Optimal Screening Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses can inform decisions about screening guidelines by quantifying consequences of alternative algorithms. Although actual screening adherence is imperfect, incorporating nonadherence into analyses that aim to determine optimal screening may affect the policy recommendations. We evaluated the impact of nonadherence assumptions on the optimal cervical cancer screening in Norway. METHODS: We used a microsimulation model of cervical carcinogenesis to project the long-term health and economic outcomes under alternative screening algorithms and adherence patterns. We compared 18 algorithms involving primary human papillomavirus testing (5-yearly) that varied follow-up management of different human papillomavirus results. We considered 12 adherence scenarios: perfect adherence, 8 high- and low-coverage "random-complier" scenarios, and 3 "systematic-complier" scenarios that reflect conditional screening behavior over a lifetime. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and considered a strategy with the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio < 55 000 US dollars/quality-adjusted life-year as "optimal." RESULTS: Under perfect adherence, the least intensive screening strategy was optimal; in contrast, assuming any nonadherence resulted in a more intensive optimal strategy. Accounting for lower adherence resulted in both lower costs and health benefits, which allowed for a more intensive strategy to be considered optimal, but more harms for women who screen according to guidelines (ie, up to 41% more colposcopies when comparing the optimal strategy in the lowest-adherence scenario with the optimal strategy under perfect adherence). CONCLUSIONS: Assuming nonadherence in analyses designed to inform national guidelines may lead to a relatively more intensive recommendation. Designing guidelines for those who do not adhere to them may lead to over-screening of those who do.

Upper age limits for US male human papillomavirus vaccination for oropharyngeal cancer prevention: a microsimulation-based modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HVP)-positive oropharyngeal cancer is the most common HPV-associated cancer in the United States. The age at acquisition of oral HPV infections that cause oropharyngeal cancer (causal infections) is unknown; consequently, the benefit of vaccination of US men aged 27-45 years remains uncertain. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation-based, individual-level, state-transition model of oral HPV16 and HPV16-positive oropharyngeal cancer among heterosexual US men aged 15-84 years, calibrated to population-level data. We estimated the benefit of vaccination of men aged 27-45 years for prevention of oropharyngeal cancer, accounting for direct- and indirect effects (ie, herd effects) of male and female vaccination. RESULTS: In the absence of vaccination, most (70%) causal oral HPV16 infections are acquired by age 26 years, and 29% are acquired between ages 27 and 45 years. Among men aged 15-45 years in 2021 (1976-2006 birth cohorts), status quo vaccination of men through age 26 years is estimated to prevent 95% of 153 450 vaccine-preventable cancers. Assuming 100% vaccination in 2021, extending the upper age limit to 30, 35, 40, or 45 years for men aged 27-45 years (1976-1994 cohorts) is estimated to yield small benefits (3.0%, 4.2%, 5.1%, and 5.6% additional cancers prevented, respectively). Importantly, status quo vaccination of men through age 26 years is predicted to result in notable declines in HPV16-positive oropharyngeal cancer incidence in young men by 2035 (51% and 24% declines at ages 40-44 years and 45-49 years, respectively) and noticeable declines (12%) overall by 2045. CONCLUSION: Most causal oral HPV16 infections in US men are acquired by age 26 years, underscoring limited benefit from vaccination of men aged 27-45 years for prevention of HPV16-positive oropharyngeal cancers.

The cost-effectiveness of opt-in and send-to-all HPV self-sampling among long-term non-attenders to cervical cancer screening in Norway: The Equalscreen randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of mailing a human papillomavirus self-sampling (HPV-ss) kit, directly or via invitation to order, compared with mailing reminder letters among long-term non-attenders in Norway. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis using the Equalscreen study data with 6000 women aged 35-69 years who had not screened in 10+ years. Participants were equally randomized into three arms: reminder letter (control); invitation to order HPV-ss kit (opt-in); directly mailed HPV-ss kit (send-to-all). Cost-effectiveness (2020 Great British Pounds (GBP)) was estimated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per additional screened woman, and per additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) from extended and direct healthcare perspectives. RESULTS: Participation, CIN2+ detection, and total screening costs were highest in the send-to-all arm, followed by the opt-in and control arms. Non-histological physician appointments contributed to 67% of the total costs in the control arm and ≤ 31% in the self-sampling arms. From an expanded healthcare perspective, the ICERs were 135 GBP and 169 GBP per additional screened woman, and 2864 GBP and 4165 GBP per additional CIN2+ detected for the opt-in and send-to-all, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Opt-in and send-to-all self-sampling were more effective and, depending on willingness-to-pay, may be considered cost-effective alternatives to improve screening attendance in Norway.

Transition from Laser to Intravitreal Injections for Diabetic Retinopathy: Hospital Utilization and Costs from an Extended Healthcare Perspective.

PURPOSE: To describe the trends in hospital utilization and economic outcomes associated with the transition from laser to intravitreal injection (IVI) therapy for diabetic retinopathy (DR) at Oslo University Hospital (OUH), which provides the largest retina service in Norway. METHODS: This descriptive study analyzed hospital administrative data and determined the average utilization and treatment proportions of laser therapy, IVIs and vitrectomy for each patient per year. The Chi-square test was used to compare resource use between treatment groups. From an extended healthcare perspective, the annual cost per patient was calculated using Norwegian tariff data from 2020 and the National Medication Price Registry for patients seen between 2010 and 2018. Bootstrapping was performed to generate 95% confidence intervals for the cost per patient per year. RESULTS: Among the 1838 (41% female) patients treated for DR between 2005 and 2018, OUH provided on average 1.09 laser treatments per DR patient and 0.54 vitrectomies per DR patient in 2005, whose utilization declined to 0.54 and 0.05 treatments per DR patient, respectively, by 2018. Laser treatments declined from 64% to 10%, while vitrectomies declined from 32% to 1%. In contrast, IVI treatments increased from 4.5% to 89% of the total share, representing an average increase, from 0.08 injections per patient in 2005 to 4.73 injections per patient in 2018. Both the increasing number of DR patients and the shift in the type of treatment increased the economic costs of treating DR from a total of EUR 0.605 million (EUR 2935 per patient) in 2010 to EUR 2.240 million (EUR 3665 per patient) in 2018, with IVIs contributing considerably to these costs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the decline in the use of vitrectomies, the transition from laser to IVI therapy for DR increased the healthcare resource utilization and economic costs of its treatment over the observed time. A main cost driver was the need for long-term IVIs, in addition to the drug cost itself. Trade-offs can be achieved through effective alternative IVI delivery or appropriate drug choice that balances patient needs with the economic burden of treating DR.

A model-based analysis of the health impacts of COVID-19 disruptions to primary cervical screening by time since last screen for current and future disruptions.

We evaluated how temporary disruptions to primary cervical cancer (CC) screening services may differentially impact women due to heterogeneity in their screening history and test modality. We used three CC models to project the short- and long-term health impacts assuming an underlying primary screening frequency (i.e., 1, 3, 5, or 10 yearly) under three alternative COVID-19-related screening disruption scenarios (i.e., 1-, 2-, or 5-year delay) versus no delay in the context of both cytology-based and human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening. Models projected a relative increase in symptomatically detected cancer cases during a 1-year delay period that was 38% higher (Policy1-Cervix), 80% higher (Harvard), and 170% higher (MISCAN-Cervix) for underscreened women whose last cytology screen was 5 years prior to the disruption period compared with guidelines-compliant women (i.e., last screen 3 years prior to disruption). Over a woman's lifetime, temporary COVID-19-related delays had less impact on lifetime risk of developing CC than screening frequency and test modality; however, CC risks increased disproportionately the longer time had elapsed since a woman's last screen at the time of the disruption. Excess risks for a given delay period were generally lower for HPV-based screeners than for cytology-based screeners. Our independent models predicted that the main drivers of CC risk were screening frequency and screening modality, and the overall impact of disruptions from the pandemic on CC outcomes may be small. However, screening disruptions disproportionately affect underscreened women, underpinning the importance of reaching such women as a critical area of focus, regardless of temporary disruptions.

Health impacts of COVID-19 disruptions to primary cervical screening by time since last screen: A model-based analysis for current and future disruptions.

Background: We evaluated how temporary disruptions to primary cervical cancer (CC) screening services may differentially impact women due to heterogeneity in their screening history and test modality. Methods: We used three CC models to project the short- and long-term health impacts assuming an underlying primary screening frequency (i.e., 1, 3, 5, or 10 yearly) under three alternative COVID-19-related screening disruption scenarios (i.e., 1-, 2- or 5-year delay) versus no delay, in the context of both cytology-based and HPV-based screening. Results: Models projected a relative increase in symptomatically-detected cancer cases during a 1-year delay period that was 38% higher (Policy1-Cervix), 80% higher (Harvard) and 170% higher (MISCAN-Cervix) for under-screened women whose last cytology screen was 5 years prior to the disruption period compared with guidelines-compliant women (i.e., last screen three years prior to disruption). Over a woman's lifetime, temporary COVID-19-related delays had less impact on lifetime risk of developing CC than screening frequency and test modality; however, CC risks increased disproportionately the longer time had elapsed since a woman's last screen at the time of the disruption. Excess risks for a given delay period were generally lower for HPV-based screeners than for cytology-based screeners. Conclusions: Our independent models predicted that the main drivers of CC risk were screening frequency and screening modality, and the overall impact of disruptions from the pandemic on CC outcomes may be small. However, screening disruptions disproportionately affect under-screened women, underpinning the importance of reaching such women as a critical area of focus, regardless of temporary disruptions. Funding: This study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute (U01CA199334). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute. Megan A Smith receives salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (APP1159491) and Cancer Institute NSW (ECF181561). Matejka Rebolj is funded by Cancer Research UK (reference: C8162/A27047). James O'Mahony is funded by Ireland's Health Research Board (EIA2017054). Karen Canfell receives salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (APP1194679). Emily A. Burger receives salary support from the Norwegian Cancer Society.

Now or later: Health impacts of delaying single-dose HPV vaccine implementation in a high-burden setting.

We aimed to quantify the health impact of immediate introduction of a single-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program in a high-burden setting, as waiting until forthcoming trials are completed to implement single-dose HPV vaccination may result in health losses, particularly for cohorts who would age-out of vaccination eligibility. Two mathematical models fitted to a high-burden setting projected cervical cancer incidence rates associated with (a) immediate implementation of one-dose HPV vaccination vs (b) waiting 5 years for evidence from randomized trials to determine if one- or two-doses should be implemented. We conducted analyses assuming a single dose was either noninferior or inferior to two doses. The models projected that immediate implementation of a noninferior single-dose vaccine led to a 7.2% to 9.6% increase in cancers averted between 2021 to 2120, compared to waiting 5 years. Health benefits remained greater with immediate implementation despite an inferior single-dose efficacy (80%), but revaccination of one-dose recipients became more important assuming vaccine waning. Under most circumstances, immediate vaccination avoided health losses for those aging out of vaccine eligibility, leading to greater health benefits than waiting for more information in 5 years.

Healthcare expenditure of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors compared with dexamethasone implant for diabetic macular oedema.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to estimate the 1-year costs associated with treating diabetic macular oedema (DME) patients using current intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) biologics compared with the dexamethasone implant. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive cost-evaluation analysis using data from Oslo University Hospital and literature to compare three different intravitreal drugs for DME: bevacizumab, aflibercept and dexamethasone. Stratification of patients into 'Naive' or 'Switch' group was based on treatment history. We estimated the costs from healthcare and 'extended' healthcare perspectives. Sensitivity analysis evaluated the impact of various parameters. RESULTS: The average injections per patient per year for the Naive group (bevacizumab), Switch group (aflibercept) and dexamethasone were 9.5, 9.1 and 3.0 respectively. From a healthcare perspective, the 1-year costs for the Naive group were 15% lower (bevacizumab, €3619), and for the Switch group, 23% higher (aflibercept, €5226) compared with dexamethasone (€4252). The 'extended' healthcare perspective showed the cost per patient per year for bevacizumab remained nominally lower in the Naive group, while dexamethasone remained lower for the Switch group (€5116 for dexamethasone, compared to €4987 for bevacizumab and €6537 for aflibercept). CONCLUSIONS: From a primary healthcare perspective, the dexamethasone as a first-line DME treatment may increase economic costs in settings where bevacizumab is used off-label. Treating resistant DMEwith dexamethasone may reduce the costs and treatment burden compared with switching to aflibercept.

Identifying a Single Optimal Integrated Cervical Cancer Prevention Policy in Norway: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Interventions targeting the same disease but at different points along the disease continuum (e.g., screening and vaccination to prevent cervical cancer [CC]) are often evaluated in isolation, which can affect cost-effectiveness profiles and policy conclusions. We evaluated nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (9vHPV) compared with bivalent HPV vaccine (2vHPV) alongside deintensified screening intervals for a vaccinated birth cohort to inform a single optimal integrated CC prevention policy. METHODS: Using a multimodeling approach, we evaluated the health and economic impacts of alternative CC screening strategies for a Norwegian birth cohort eligible for HPV vaccination in 2021 assuming they received 1) 2vHPV or 2) 9vHPV. We conducted 1) a restricted analysis that evaluated the optimal HPV vaccine under current screening guidelines; and 2) a comprehensive analysis including alternative screening and vaccination strategy combinations. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and evaluated them according to different cost-effectiveness thresholds. RESULTS: Assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of $40,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, we found that, while holding screening intensity fixed, switching the routine vaccination program in Norway from 2vHPV to 9vHPV would not be considered cost-effective (ICER of $132,700 per QALY gained). However, when allowing for varying intensities of CC screening, we found that switching to 9vHPV would be cost-effective compared with 2vHPV under an alternative threshold of $55,000 per QALY gained, if coupled with reductions in the number of lifetime screens. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the importance of evaluating the full potential policy landscape for country-level decision makers considering policy adoption, including nonindependent primary and secondary prevention efforts, to draw appropriate conclusions and avoid sub-optimal outcomes. HIGHLIGHTS: Without evaluating the full potential policy landscape, including primary and secondary prevention efforts, country-level decision makers may not be able to draw appropriate policy conclusions, resulting in suboptimal outcomes.An applied example from cervical cancer prevention in Norway compared a restricted analysis of current screening guidelines to a comprehensive analysis including alternative screening and vaccination strategy combinations.We found that a switch from bivalent to nonavalent human papillomavirus vaccine would be considered cost-effective in Norway if coupled with reductions in the number of lifetime screens compared with the current screening strategy.A comprehensive analysis that considers how different types of interventions along the disease continuum affect each other will be critical for decision makers interpreting cost-effectiveness analysis results.

Impact of Delaying Effective and Cost-Effective Policy Decisions: An Example From Cervical Cancer Prevention in Norway.

Introduction. Delayed implementation of evidence-driven interventions has consequences that can be formally evaluated. In Norway, programs to prevent cervical cancer (CC)-screening and treatment of precancerous lesions and prophylactic vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection-have been implemented, but each encountered delays in policy implementation. To examine the effect of these delays, we project the outcomes that would have been achieved with timely implementation of two policy changes compared with the de facto delays in implementation (in Norway). Methods. We used a multimodeling approach that combined HPV transmission and cervical carcinogenesis to estimate the health outcomes and timeline for CC elimination associated with the implementation of two CC prevention policy decisions: a multicohort vaccination program of women up to age 26 years with bivalent vaccine in 2009 compared with actual "delayed" implementation in 2016, and a switch from cytology to primary HPV-based testing in 2015 compared with "delayed" rollout in 2020. Results. Timely implementation of two policy changes compared with current Norwegian prevention policy timeline could have averted approximately 970 additional cases (range of top 10 sets: 830-1060) and accelerated the CC elimination timeline by around 4 years (from 2039 to 2035). Conclusions. If delaying implementation of effective and cost-effective interventions is being considered, the decision-making process should include quantitative analyses on the effects of delays.