The Cost-Effectiveness of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening in Estonia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of population-based abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening in Estonia. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of population-based AAA screening compared with no screening. A hypothetical cohort of 6000 men aged 65 was followed for 35 years. Data for disease transition probabilities and quality of life outcomes were obtained from published literature; costs were calculated based on Estonian data. Analysis followed the healthcare payer's perspective using an annual discount rate of 5% for costs and effects. The model evaluated the number of avoidable AAA ruptures and AAA-related deaths and the differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The AAA screening would have prevented 10 AAA ruptures and 6 AAA-related deaths among the cohort of 6000 men, resulting in 23 QALYs gained (0.000378 QALYs per individual). The additional cost of the screening and treatment was €39 429 (€65.4 per individual) with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for screening compared with no screening being €17 303 per QALY gained. Although results were sensitive to assumptions regarding health-related quality of life and the models' time horizon, screening was found to be cost-effective with a 99% probability at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30 000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Population-based AAA screening of elderly men is likely to be a cost-effective measure in reducing the AAA-related disease burden. Given the increase in the overall costs, the actual policy decisions regarding implementing an AAA screening program in Estonia are likely to be influenced by availability of resources as well.

Cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination in the context of high cervical cancer incidence and low screening coverage.

BACKGROUND: Estonia has high cervical cancer incidence and low screening coverage. We modelled the impact of population-based bivalent, quadrivalent or nonavalent HPV vaccination alongside cervical cancer screening. METHODS: A Markov cohort model of the natural history of HPV infection was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating a cohort of 12-year-old girls with bivalent, quadrivalent or nonavalent vaccine in two doses in a national, school-based vaccination programme. The model followed the natural progression of HPV infection into subsequent genital warts (GW); premalignant lesions (CIN1-3); cervical, oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal and anal cancer. Vaccine coverage was assumed to be 70%. A time horizon of 88years (up to 100years of age) was used to capture all lifetime vaccination costs and benefits. Costs and utilities were discounted using an annual discount rate of 5%. RESULTS: Vaccination of 12-year-old girls alongside screening compared to screening alone had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €14,007 (bivalent), €14,067 (quadrivalent) and €11,633 (nonavalent) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the base-case scenario and ranged between €5367-21,711, €5142-21,800 and €4563-18,142, respectively, in sensitivity analysis. The results were most sensitive to changes in discount rate, vaccination regimen, vaccine prices and cervical cancer screening coverage. CONCLUSION: Vaccination of 12-year-old girls alongside current cervical cancer screening can be considered a cost-effective intervention in Estonia. Adding HPV vaccination to the national immunisation schedule is expected to prevent a considerable number of HPV infections, genital warts, premalignant lesions, HPV related cancers and deaths. Although in our model ICERs varied slightly depending on the vaccine used, they generally fell within the same range. Cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination was found to be most dependent on vaccine cost and duration of vaccine immunity, but not on the type of vaccine used.