Exploring monitoring strategies for population surveillance of HPV vaccine impact using primary HPV screening.

Australia's cervical screening program transitioned from cytology to HPV-testing with genotyping for HPV16/18 in Dec'2017. We investigated whether program data could be used to monitor HPV vaccination program impact (commenced in 2007) on HPV16/18 prevalence and compared estimates with pre-vaccination benchmark prevalence. Pre-vaccination samples (2005-2008) (n = 1933; WHINURS), from 25 to 64-year-old women had been previously analysed with Linear Array (LA). Post-vaccination samples (2013-2014) (n = 2989; Compass pilot), from 25 to 64-year-old women, were analysed by cobas 4800 (cobas), and by LA for historical comparability. Age standardised pre-vaccination HPV16/18 prevalence was 4.85% (95%CI:3.81-5.89) by LA; post-vaccination estimates were 1.67% (95%CI:1.21-2.13%) by LA, 1.49% (95%CI:1.05-1.93%) by cobas, and 1.63% (95%CI:1.17-2.08%) for cobas and LA testing of non-16/18 cobas positives (cobas/LA). Age-standardised pre-vaccination oncogenic HPV prevalence was 15.70% (95%CI:13.79-17.60%) by LA; post-vaccination estimates were 9.06% (95%CI:8.02-10.09%) by LA, 8.47% (95%CI:7.47-9.47%) by cobas and cobas/LA. Standardised rate ratios between post-vs. pre-vaccination rates were significantly different for HPV16/18, non-16/18 HPV and oncogenic HPV: 0.34 (95%CI:0.23-0.50), 0.68 (95%CI:0.55-0.84) and 0.58 (95%CI:0.48-0.69), respectively. Additional strategies (LA for all cobas positives; combined cobas and LA results on all samples) had similar results. If a single method is applied consistently, it will provide important data on relative changes in HPV prevalence following vaccination.

Management of Chlamydia Cases in Australia (MoCCA): protocol for a non-randomised implementation and feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: The sexually transmitted infection chlamydia can cause significant complications, particularly among people with female reproductive organs. Optimal management includes timely and appropriate treatment, notifying and treating sexual partners, timely retesting for reinfection and detecting complications including pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). In Australia, mainstream primary care (general practice) is where most chlamydia infections are diagnosed, making it a key setting for optimising chlamydia management. High reinfection and low retesting rates suggest partner notification and retesting are not uniformly provided. The Management of Chlamydia Cases in Australia (MoCCA) study seeks to address gaps in chlamydia management in Australian general practice through implementing interventions shown to improve chlamydia management in specialist services. MoCCA will focus on improving retesting, partner management (including patient-delivered partner therapy) and PID diagnosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MoCCA is a non-randomised implementation and feasibility trial aiming to determine how best to implement interventions to support general practice in delivering best practice chlamydia management. Our method is guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Normalisation Process Theory. MoCCA interventions include a website, flow charts, fact sheets, mailed specimen kits and autofills to streamline chlamydia consultation documentation. We aim to recruit 20 general practices across three Australian states (Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland) through which we will implement the interventions over 12-18 months. Mixed methods involving qualitative and quantitative data collection and analyses (observation, interviews, surveys) from staff and patients will be undertaken to explore our intervention implementation, acceptability and uptake. Deidentified general practice and laboratory data will be used to measure pre-post chlamydia testing, retesting, reinfection and PID rates, and to estimate MoCCA intervention costs. Our findings will guide scale-up plans for Australian general practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from The University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (Ethics ID: 22665). Findings will be disseminated via conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and study reports.

Implementation of Australia's renewed cervical screening program: Preparedness of general practitioners and nurses.

The National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) in Australia underwent major changes on December 1st, 2017. The program changed from 2-yearly Pap testing for women aged 18-69 years to 5-yearly HPV testing for women aged 25-74 years including differential management pathways for oncogenic HPV 16/18 positive versus HPV non16/18 positive test results and the option of self-collection for under-screened women. We conducted a survey among cervical screening providers in primary care to assess their level of preparedness in undertaking cervical screening before (pre-renewal) and after (post-renewal) the new program was implemented. Surveys were conducted between 14th August and 30th November 2017 (pre-renewal) and 9th February and 26th October 2018 (post-renewal) among cervical screening providers who attended education sessions related to the new guidelines. Preparedness was assessed in three areas: 1) level of comfort implementing the new guidelines (7 questions), 2) level of confidence in their ability to convey information about the new guidelines (9 questions) and 3) level of agreement regarding access to resources to support implementation (11 questions). Proportions were calculated for each question response and pre- and post-renewal periods compared using generalised linear models. Open-ended questions related to anticipated barriers and ways to overcome barriers were also included in the questionnaires. Compared to the pre-renewal period, a higher proportion of practitioners in the post-renewal period were more comfortable offering routine screening to women ≥25 years (p = 0.005) and more confident explaining the rationale for not screening before 25 years (p = 0.015); confident explaining a positive HPV 16/18 (p = 0.04) and HPV non 16/18(p = 0.013) test result and were comfortable with not referring women with a positive HPV non 16/18 test result and low grade/negative cytology for colposcopy (p = 0.01). A higher proportion of Victorian practitioners in the post-renewal period sample were also comfortable (p = 0.04) and confident (p = 0.015) recommending self-collection to under-screened women and agreed that self-collection is a reliable test (p = 0.003). The most commonly reported suggestion was to provide information, education and communication materials to both patients and practitioners. Compared to the pre-renewal period, practitioners in the post-renewal period were better prepared to implement the renewed screening program. Healthcare providers require further support to implement the self-collection pathway.

Pathways to a cancer-free future: A protocol for modelled evaluations to maximize the future impact of interventions on cervical cancer in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Australia's HPV vaccination and HPV-based cervical screening programs are changing the landscape in cervical cancer prevention. We aim to identify areas which can make the biggest further impact on cervical cancer burden. This protocol describes the first stage of a program of work called Pathways-Cervix that aims to generate evidence from modelled evaluations of interventions across the cervical cancer spectrum. METHODS: Based on evidence from literature reviews and guidance from a multi-disciplinary Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), the most relevant evaluations for prevention, diagnosis and treatment were identified. RESULTS: Priority evaluations agreed by the SAC included: increasing/decreasing and retaining vaccination uptake at the current level; vaccinating older women; increasing screening participation; methods for triaging HPV-positive women; improving the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cancer; treating cervical abnormalities and cancer; and vaccinating women treated for CIN2/3 to prevent recurrence. Evaluations will be performed using a simulation model, Policy1-Cervix previously used to perform policy evaluations in Australia. Exploratory modelling of interventions using idealised scenarios will initially be conducted in single birth cohorts. If these have a significant impact on findings then evaluations with more realistic assumptions will be conducted. Promising strategies will be investigated further by multi-cohort simulations predicting health outcomes, resource use and cost outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Pathways-Cervix will assess the relative benefits of strategies and treatment options in a systematic and health economic framework, producing a list of 'best buys' for future decision-making in cervical cancer control.