1. Primary HPV screening compared with other cervical cancer screening strategies in women with HIV: a cost-effectiveness study.
- Author
-
Zhao R, Sanstead E, Alarid-Escudero F, Huchko M, Silverberg M, Smith-McCune K, Gregorich SE, Leyden W, Kuppermann M, Sawaya GF, and Kulasingam S
- Subjects
- Humans, Female, Adult, United States, Middle Aged, Young Adult, Mass Screening economics, Mass Screening methods, Colposcopy economics, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms diagnosis, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms virology, Papillomavirus Infections diagnosis, Papillomavirus Infections complications, Early Detection of Cancer economics, Early Detection of Cancer methods, HIV Infections diagnosis, HIV Infections economics
- Abstract
Objective: To compare the model-predicted benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of cytology, cotesting, and primary HPV screening in US women with HIV (WWH)., Design: We adapted a previously published Markov decision model to simulate a cohort of US WWH., Setting: United States., Subjects, Participants: A hypothetical inception cohort of WWH., Intervention: We simulated five screening strategies all assumed the same strategy of cytology with HPV triage for ASCUS for women aged 21-29 years. The different strategies noted are for women aged 30 and older as the following: continue cytology with HPV triage, cotesting with repeat cotesting triage, cotesting with HPV16/18 genotyping triage, primary hrHPV testing with cytology triage, and primary hrHPV testing with HPV16/18 genotyping triage., Main Outcome Measures: The outcomes include colposcopies, false-positive results, treatments, cancers, cancer deaths, life-years and costs, and lifetime quality-adjusted life-years., Results: Compared with no screening, screening was cost-saving, and >96% of cervical cancers and deaths could be prevented. Cytology with HPV triage dominated primary HPV screening and cotesting. At willingness-to-pay thresholds under $250 000, probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that primary HPV testing was more cost-effective than cotesting in over 98% of the iterations., Conclusions: Our study suggests the current cytology-based screening recommendation is cost-effective, but that primary HPV screening could be a cost-effective alternative to cotesting. To improve the cost-effectiveness of HPV-based screening, increased acceptance of the HPV test among targeted women is needed, as are alternative follow-up recommendations to limit the harms of high false-positive testing., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF