Expenditure and resource utilisation for cervical screening in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The National Cervical Screening Program in Australia currently recommends that women aged 18-69 years are screened with conventional cytology every 2 years. Publicly funded HPV vaccination was introduced in 2007, and partly as a consequence, a renewal of the screening program that includes a review of screening recommendations has recently been announced. This study aimed to provide a baseline for such a review by quantifying screening program resource utilisation and costs in 2010. METHODS: A detailed model of current cervical screening practice in Australia was constructed and we used data from the Victorian Cervical Cytology Registry to model age-specific compliance with screening and follow-up. We applied model-derived rate estimates to the 2010 Australian female population to calculate costs and numbers of colposcopies, biopsies, treatments for precancer and cervical cancers in that year, assuming that the numbers of these procedures were not yet substantially impacted by vaccination. RESULTS: The total cost of the screening program in 2010 (excluding administrative program overheads) was estimated to be A$194.8M. We estimated that a total of 1.7 million primary screening smears costing $96.7M were conducted, a further 188,900 smears costing $10.9M were conducted to follow-up low grade abnormalities, 70,900 colposcopy and 34,100 histological evaluations together costing $21.2M were conducted, and about 18,900 treatments for precancerous lesions were performed (including retreatments), associated with a cost of $45.5M for treatment and post-treatment follow-up. We also estimated that $20.5M was spent on work-up and treatment for approximately 761 women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer. Overall, an estimated $23 was spent in 2010 for each adult woman in Australia on cervical screening program-related activities. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of the total cost of the screening program is spent on delivery of primary screening tests; but the introduction of HPV vaccination, new technologies, increasing the interval and changing the age range of screening is expected to have a substantial impact on this expenditure, as well as having some impact on follow-up and management costs. These estimates provide a benchmark for future assessment of the impact of changes to screening program recommendations to the costs of cervical screening in Australia.

Cervical cancer screening in Australia: modelled evaluation of the impact of changing the recommended interval from two to three years.

BACKGROUND: The National Cervical Screening Program in Australia currently recommends that sexually active women between the ages of 18-70 years attend routine screening every 2 years. The publically funded National HPV Vaccination Program commenced in 2007, with catch-up in females aged 12-26 years conducted until 2009; and this may prompt consideration of whether the screening interval and other aspects of the organized screening program could be reviewed. The aim of the current evaluation was to assess the epidemiologic outcomes and cost implications of changing the recommended screening interval in Australia to 3 years. METHODS: We used a modelling approach to evaluate the effects of moving to a 3-yearly recommended screening interval. We used data from the Victorian Cervical Cytology Registry over the period 1997-2007 to model compliance with routine screening under current practice, and registry data from other countries with 3-yearly recommendations to inform assumptions about future screening behaviour under two alternative systems for screening organisation--retention of a reminder-based system (as in New Zealand), or a move to a call-and-recall system (as in England). RESULTS: A 3-yearly recommendation is predicted to be of similar effectiveness to the current 2-yearly recommendation, resulting in no substantial change to the total number of incident cervical cancer cases or cancer deaths, or to the estimated 0.68% average cumulative lifetime risk of cervical cancer in unvaccinated Australian women. However, a 3-yearly screening policy would be associated with decreases in the annual number of colposcopy and biopsy procedures performed (by 4-10%) and decreases in the number of treatments for pre-invasive lesions (by 2-4%). The magnitude of the decrease in the number of diagnostic procedures and treatments would depend on the method of screening organization, with call-and-recall screening associated with the highest reductions. The cost savings are predicted to be of the order of A$10-18 M annually, equivalent to 6-11% of the total cost of the current program (excluding overheads), with call-and-recall being associated with the greatest savings. CONCLUSIONS: Lengthening the recommended screening interval to 3 years in Australia is not predicted to result in increases in rates of cervical cancer and is predicted to decrease the number of women undergoing diagnostic and treatment procedures. These findings are consistent with a large body of international evidence showing that screening more frequently than every three years with cervical cytology does not result in substantial gains in screening effectiveness.

Bicycle injuries and helmet use: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The research literature was systematically reviewed and results were summarized from studies assessing bicycle helmet effectiveness to mitigate head, serious head, face, neck and fatal head injury in a crash or fall. Methods: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, COMPENDEX and SCOPUS) were searched for relevant, peer-reviewed articles in English. Included studies reported medically diagnosed head, face and neck injuries where helmet use was known. Non-approved helmets were excluded where possible. Summary odds ratios (OR) were obtained using multivariate meta-regression models stratified by injury type and severity. Time trends and publication bias were assessed. Results: A total of 43 studies met inclusion criteria and 40 studies were included in the meta-analysis with data from over 64 000 injured cyclists. For cyclists involved in a crash or fall, helmet use was associated with odds reductions for head (OR = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.57), serious head (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.25-0.37), face (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56-0.81) and fatal head injury (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14-0.88). No clear evidence of an association between helmet use and neck injury was found (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.74-1.25). There was no evidence of time trends or publication bias. Conclusions: Bicycle helmet use was associated with reduced odds of head injury, serious head injury, facial injury and fatal head injury. The reduction was greater for serious or fatal head injury. Neck injury was rare and not associated with helmet use. These results support the use of strategies to increase the uptake of bicycle helmets as part of a comprehensive cycling safety plan.

Understanding the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination in children: methodological choices and seasonal variability.

BACKGROUND: The universal vaccination of children for influenza has recently been recommended in the UK and is being considered in other developed countries. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore the potential costs and benefits of childhood influenza vaccination to gain a better understanding of the key drivers of cost-effectiveness. METHODS: As our case study we examined the cost-effectiveness of vaccination in Australian schoolchildren using an age-stratified Susceptible Exposed Infectious Recovered model. RESULTS: The results of this study highlight the critical role that methodological choices play in determining the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination. These choices include decisions about the structure of the model (including/excluding herd immunity) and what costs and benefits to include in the analysis. In scenarios where herd protection was included we estimated that the program was likely to be cost-effective. The study also illustrates the importance of the inherent seasonal variability of influenza, which can produce counter-intuitive results, with low transmission seasons being easier to control by vaccination but resulting in fewer benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Universal childhood influenza vaccination is likely to be cost-effective if a substantial herd protection effect can be achieved by the program. However, it is important that decision makers understand the role of seasonal variability and the impact of alternative methodological choices in economic evaluations of influenza vaccination.

The potential cost-effectiveness of infant pneumococcal vaccines in Australia.

Over the last decade infant pneumococcal vaccination has been adopted as part of routine immunisation schedules in many developed countries. Although highly successful in many settings such as Australia and the United States, rapid serotype replacement has occurred in some European countries. Recently two pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) with extended serotype coverage have been licensed for use, a 10-valent (PHiD-CV) and a 13-valent (PCV-13) vaccine, and offer potential replacements for the existing vaccine (PCV-7) in Australia. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PCV programs we developed a static, deterministic state-transition model. The perspective for costs included those to the government and healthcare system. When compared to current practice (PCV-7) both vaccines offered potential benefits, with those estimated for PHiD-CV due primarily to prevention of otitis media and PCV-13 due to a further reduction in invasive disease in Australia. At equivalent total cost to vaccinate an infant, compared to no PCV the base-case cost per QALY saved were estimated at A$64,900 (current practice, PCV-7; 3+0), A$50,200 (PHiD-CV; 3+1) and A$55,300 (PCV-13; 3+0), respectively. However, assumptions regarding herd protection, serotype protection, otitis media efficacy, and vaccination cost changed the relative cost-effectiveness of alternative PCV programs. The high proportion of current invasive disease caused by serotype 19A (as included in PCV-13) may be a decisive factor in determining vaccine policy in Australia.