Systematic review and evidence synthesis of non-cervical human papillomavirus-related disease health system costs and quality of life estimates.

BACKGROUND: Many economic evaluations of human papillomavirus vaccination should ideally consider multiple disease outcomes, including anogenital warts, respiratory papillomatosis and non-cervical cancers (eg, anal, oropharyngeal, penile, vulvar and vaginal cancers). However, published economic evaluations largely relied on estimates from single studies or informal rapid literature reviews. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of articles up to June 2016 to identify costs and utility estimates admissible for an economic evaluation from a single-payer healthcare provider's perspective. Meta-analyses were performed for studies that used same utility elicitation tools for similar diseases. Costs were adjusted to 2016/2017 US$. RESULTS: Sixty-one papers (35 costs; 24 utilities; 2 costs and utilities) were selected from 10 742 initial records. Cost per case ranges were US$124-US$883 (anogenital warts), US$6912-US$52 579 (head and neck cancers), US$12 936-US$51 571 (anal cancer), US$17 524-34 258 (vaginal cancer), US$14 686-US$28 502 (vulvar cancer) and US$9975-US$27 629 (penile cancer). The total cost for 14 adult patients with recurrent respiratory papillomatosis was US$137 601 (one paper).Utility per warts episode ranged from 0.651 to 1 (12 papers, various utility elicitation methods), with pooled mean EQ-5D and EQ-VAS of 0.86 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.87) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.75), respectively. Fifteen papers reported utilities in head and neck cancers with range 0.29 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.76) to 0.94 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.0). Mean utility reported ranged from 0.5 (95% CI 0.4 to 0.61) to 0.65 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.75) (anal cancer), 0.59 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.64) (vaginal cancer), 0.65 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.70) (vulvar cancer) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.84) (penile cancer). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in values reported from each paper reflect variations in cancer site, disease stages, study population, treatment modality/setting and utility elicitation methods used. As patient management changes over time, corresponding effects on both costs and utility need to be considered to ensure health economic assumptions are up-to-date and closely reflect the case mix of patients.

Preparing for PrEP: estimating the size of the population eligible for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in England.

OBJECTIVES: The size of the population of men who have sex with men (MSM) who may be eligible for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (HIV-PrEP) in England remains unknown. To plan for a national PrEP implementation trial, we estimated the number of MSM attending sexual health clinics (SHCs) that may be eligible for HIV-PrEP in England. METHODS: Sexually transmitted infection (STI) surveillance data from 2010 to 2015 from the GUMCAD surveillance system were used to estimate the annual number of HIV-negative MSM who may be eligible for HIV-PrEP in England. Based on national eligibility criteria, we identified HIV-negative MSM attending SHCs with a HIV-negative test in the past year and used diagnosed bacterial STI (past year) in this group as a proxy for condomless sex and eligibility for HIV-PrEP. We estimated HIV incidence per 100 person-years (py) in these groups in 2014. RESULTS: During 2010-2015, the number of HIV-negative MSM attending SHCs with a HIV-negative test in the past year doubled from 14 643 to 29 023, and HIV incidence in this group was 1.9 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.2) per 100 py in 2014. In the same period, the subgroup with a bacterial STI diagnosis (past year), and therefore considered potentially eligible for HIV-PrEP in this analysis, increased from 4365 (30%) to 10 276 (35%). HIV incidence in this subgroup was 3.3 (95% CI 2.7 to 4.0) per 100 py in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: In 2015, approximately 10 000 HIV-negative MSM were considered potentially eligible for HIV-PrEP based on clinic history in GUMCAD. These data were used to inform the initial recruitment target for the PrEP Impact Trial and will inform future evaluations at a population level.

Chlamydia sequelae cost estimates used in current economic evaluations: does one-size-fit-all?

BACKGROUND: Current evidence suggests that chlamydia screening programmes can be cost-effective, conditional on assumptions within mathematical models. We explored differences in cost estimates used in published economic evaluations of chlamydia screening from seven countries (four papers each from UK and the Netherlands, two each from Sweden and Australia, and one each from Ireland, Canada and Denmark). METHODS: From these studies, we extracted management cost estimates for seven major chlamydia sequelae. In order to compare the influence of different sequelae considered in each paper and their corresponding management costs on the total cost per case of untreated chlamydia, we applied reported unit sequelae management costs considered in each paper to a set of untreated infection to sequela progression probabilities. All costs were adjusted to 2013/2014 Great British Pound (GBP) values. RESULTS: Sequelae management costs ranged from £171 to £3635 (pelvic inflammatory disease); £953 to £3615 (ectopic pregnancy); £546 to £6752 (tubal factor infertility); £159 to £3341 (chronic pelvic pain); £22 to £1008 (epididymitis); £11 to £1459 (neonatal conjunctivitis) and £433 to £3992 (neonatal pneumonia). Total cost of sequelae per case of untreated chlamydia ranged from £37 to £412. CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial variation in cost per case of chlamydia sequelae used in published chlamydia screening economic evaluations, which likely arose from different assumptions about disease management pathways and the country perspectives taken. In light of this, when interpreting these studies, the reader should be satisfied that the cost estimates used sufficiently reflect the perspective taken and current disease management for their respective context.

Economic evaluation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men-who-have-sex-with-men in England in 2016.

Clinical effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for preventing HIV acquisition in men who have sex with men (MSM) at high HIV risk is established. A static decision analytical model was constructed to inform policy prioritisation in England around cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact of a PrEP programme covering 5,000 MSM during an initial high-risk period. National genitourinary medicine clinic surveillance data informed key HIV risk assumptions. Pragmatic large-scale implementation scenarios were explored. At 86% effectiveness, PrEP given to 5,000 MSM at 3.3 per 100 person-years annual HIV incidence, assuming risk compensation (20% HIV incidence increase), averted 118 HIV infections over remaining lifetimes and was cost saving. Lower effectiveness (64%) gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of + GBP 23,500 (EUR 32,000) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Investment of GBP 26.9 million (EUR 36.6 million) in year-1 breaks even anywhere from year-23 (86% effectiveness) to year-33 (64% effectiveness). PrEP cost-effectiveness was highly sensitive to year-1 HIV incidence, PrEP adherence/effectiveness, and antiretroviral drug costs. There is much uncertainty around HIV incidence in those given PrEP and adherence/effectiveness, especially under programme scale-up. Substantially reduced PrEP drug costs are needed to give the necessary assurance of cost-effectiveness, and for an affordable public health programme of sufficient size.

Identifying and selecting new procedures for health technology assessment: a decade of nice experience in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze the experience of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in identifying new procedures entering the United Kingdom (UK) healthcare system, for assessment and publication of recommendations on their use. This system is designed to provide guidance in an area where regulation is lacking worldwide. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all procedures notified to the Interventional Procedures Programme (NICE) between 2002 and 2012. Notifications were analyzed year by year for their source (who notified them), clinical specialties involved, and whether guidance was subsequently published. RESULTS: A total of 1,094 procedures were notified by clinicians (51 percent), and by others, including hospitals (6 percent), horizon scanners (5 percent), patients (4 percent), private health insurers (4 percent), and medical device manufacturers (3 percent). Guidance was published on 44 percent of procedures notified to the program. There was a decrease in the numbers of procedures notified during 2003-2012 (p = .049). There were notifications across all specialties, with the largest numbers in general surgery (125), urology (104), orthopedics (99), interventional radiology (93), cardiology (82), and obstetrics and gynecology (82). CONCLUSIONS: The "open" NICE Web portal allows anyone to notify new procedures, aiming to maximize the opportunity of identifying all those procedures entering clinical practice. This has resulted in identification of large numbers of procedures from across the whole range of medical specialties. The fact that similar proportions of procedures notified from diverse sources have been selected for assessment and publication of practice recommendations suggests that this inclusive approach is worthwhile.

Economic evaluation of the cost of different methods of retesting chlamydia positive individuals in England.

OBJECTIVES: The National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) in England opportunistically screens eligible individuals for chlamydia infection. Retesting is recommended three3 months after treatment following a positive test result, but no guidance is given on how local areas should recall individuals for retesting. Here , we compare cost estimates for different recall methods to inform the optimal delivery of retesting programmes. DESIGN: Economic evaluation. SETTING: England. METHODS: We estimated the cost of chlamydia retesting for each of the six most commonly used recall methods in 2014 based on existing cost estimates of a chlamydia screen. Proportions accepting retesting, opting for retesting by post, returning postal testing kits and retesting positive were informed by 2014 NCSP audit data. Health professionals 'sense-checked' the costs. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Cost and adjusted cost per chlamydia retest; cost and adjusted cost per chlamydia retest positive. RESULTS: We estimated the cost of the chlamydia retest pathway, including treatment/follow-up call, to be between £45 and £70 per completed test. At the lower end, this compared favourably to the cost of a clinic-based screen. Cost per retest positive was £389-£607. After adjusting for incomplete uptake, and non-return of postal kits, the cost rose to £109-£289 per completed test (cost per retest positive: £946-£2,506). The most economical method in terms of adjusted cost per retest was no active recall as gains in retest rates with active recall did not outweigh the higher cost. Nurse-led client contact by phone was particularly uneconomical, as was sending out postal testing kits automatically. CONCLUSIONS: Retesting without active recall is more economical than more intensive methods such as recalling by phone and automatically sending out postal kits. If sending a short message service (SMS) could be automated, this could be the most economical way of delivering retesting. However, patient choice and local accessibility of services should be taken into consideration in planning.

Cost-effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men in the UK: a modelling study and health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, HIV incidence among men who have sex with men (MSM) has remained high for several years, despite widespread use of antiretroviral therapy and high rates of virological suppression. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to be highly effective in preventing further infections in MSM, but its cost-effectiveness is uncertain. METHODS: In this modelling study and economic evaluation, we calibrated a dynamic, individual-based stochastic model, the HIV Synthesis Model, to multiple data sources (surveillance data provided by Public Health England and data from a large, nationally representative survey, Natsal-3) on HIV among MSM in the UK. We did a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (sampling 22 key parameters) along with a range of univariate sensitivity analyses to evaluate the introduction of a PrEP programme with sexual event-based use of emtricitabine and tenofovir for MSM who had condomless anal sexual intercourse in the previous 3 months, a negative HIV test at baseline, and a negative HIV test in the preceding year. The main model outcomes were the number of HIV infections, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. FINDINGS: Introduction of such a PrEP programme, with around 4000 MSM initiated on PrEP by the end of the first year and almost 40 000 by the end of the 15th year, would result in a total cost saving (£1·0 billion discounted), avert 25% of HIV infections (42% of which would be directly because of PrEP), and lead to a gain of 40 000 discounted QALYs over an 80-year time horizon. This result was particularly sensitive to the time horizon chosen, the cost of antiretroviral drugs (for treatment and PrEP), and the underlying trend in condomless sex. INTERPRETATION: This analysis suggests that the introduction of a PrEP programme for MSM in the UK is cost-effective and possibly cost-saving in the long term. A reduction in the cost of antiretroviral drugs (including the drugs used for PrEP) would substantially shorten the time for cost savings to be realised. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.