Abstract
Background
Interventions targeting the same disease but at different points along the disease continuum (e.g., screening and vaccination to prevent cervical cancer [CC]) are often evaluated in isolation, which can affect cost-effectiveness profiles and policy conclusions. We evaluated nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (9vHPV) compared with bivalent HPV vaccine (2vHPV) alongside deintensified screening intervals for a vaccinated birth cohort to inform a single optimal integrated CC prevention policy.
Methods
Using a multimodeling approach, we evaluated the health and economic impacts of alternative CC screening strategies for a Norwegian birth cohort eligible for HPV vaccination in 2021 assuming they received 1) 2vHPV or 2) 9vHPV. We conducted 1) a restricted analysis that evaluated the optimal HPV vaccine under current screening guidelines; and 2) a comprehensive analysis including alternative screening and vaccination strategy combinations. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and evaluated them according to different cost-effectiveness thresholds.
Results
Assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of $40,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, we found that, while holding screening intensity fixed, switching the routine vaccination program in Norway from 2vHPV to 9vHPV would not be considered cost-effective (ICER of $132,700 per QALY gained). However, when allowing for varying intensities of CC screening, we found that switching to 9vHPV would be cost-effective compared with 2vHPV under an alternative threshold of $55,000 per QALY gained, if coupled with reductions in the number of lifetime screens.
Conclusions
Our analysis highlights the importance of evaluating the full potential policy landscape for country-level decision makers considering policy adoption, including nonindependent primary and secondary prevention efforts, to draw appropriate conclusions and avoid sub-optimal outcomes.
Highlights
Without evaluating the full potential policy landscape, including primary and secondary prevention efforts, country-level decision makers may not be able to draw appropriate policy conclusions, resulting in suboptimal outcomes.
An applied example from cervical cancer prevention in Norway compared a restricted analysis of current screening guidelines to a comprehensive analysis including alternative screening and vaccination strategy combinations.
We found that a switch from bivalent to nonavalent human papillomavirus vaccine would be considered cost-effective in Norway if coupled with reductions in the number of lifetime screens compared with the current screening strategy.
A comprehensive analysis that considers how different types of interventions along the disease continuum affect each other will be critical for decision makers interpreting cost-effectiveness analysis results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
