RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: In England, human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is to replace cytological screening by 2019-2020. We conducted a model-based economic evaluation to project the long-term clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of routine cytology versus HPV testing. METHODS: An individual-based model of HPV acquisition, natural history, and cervical cancer screening was used to compare cytological screening and HPV testing with cytology triage for women aged 25-64 years (with either 3- or 5-year screening intervals for women aged under 50 years). The model was fitted to data from England's National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme. Both clinical and economic outcomes were projected to inform cost-effectiveness analyses. RESULTS: HPV testing is likely to decrease annual cytology testing (by 2.76 million), cervical cancer incidence (by 290 cases), and health system costs (by £13 million). It may increase the number of colposcopies, although this could be reduced without leading to more cancers compared with primary cytology by increasing the interval between screens to 5 years. The impact in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) depends on the quality of life weight given to colposcopies versus cancer. CONCLUSIONS: England's move from cytology to HPV screening may potentially be life-saving and cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness can be improved further by extending the interval between screens or using alternative triage methods such as partial or full genotyping.
RESUMO
Background: Men who have sex with men (MSM) have a high lifetime risk of anogenital warts and cancers related to infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). They also benefit less from herd protection than heterosexual males in settings with female-only HPV vaccination. Methods: We evaluated the potential health impact and cost-effectiveness of offering vaccination to MSM who visit genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics. We used a mathematical model of HPV 6/11/16/18 sexual transmission within an MSM population in England, parameterized with sexual behaviour, GUM attendance, HPV prevalence, HIV prevalence, warts, and cancer incidence data. Interventions considered were offering HPV vaccination to either HIV-positive MSM or MSM regardless of HIV status, for age bands 16-25, 16-30, 16-35, and 16-40 years. Results: Substantial declines in anogenital warts and male HPV-related cancer incidence are projected to occur following an offer of vaccination to MSM. MSM not attending GUM clinics will partially benefit from herd protection. Offering vaccination to HIV-positive MSM up to age 40 is likely to be cost-effective if vaccine procurement and administration costs are below £96.50 a dose. At £48 a dose, offering vaccination to all MSM up to age 40 is likely to be cost-effective. Conclusions: Quadrivalent HPV vaccination of MSM via GUM clinics is likely to be an effective and cost-effective way of reducing the burden of HPV-related disease in MSM.