Identifying a Single Optimal Integrated Cervical Cancer Prevention Policy in Norway: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Allison Portnoy, Kine Pedersen, Mari Nygård, Lill Trogstad, Jane J. Kim and Emily A. Burger
Additional contact information
Allison Portnoy: Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Kine Pedersen: Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Mari Nygård: Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
Lill Trogstad: The Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
Jane J. Kim: Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Emily A. Burger: Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Medical Decision Making, 2022, vol. 42, issue 6, 795-807

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.

Keywords: cervical cancer; screening; vaccination (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221082683 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:6:p:795-807

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221082683

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().