Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Community-based HPV self-collection versus visual inspection with acetic acid in Uganda: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the ASPIRE trial
  1. Alex K Mezei1,
  2. Heather N Pedersen2,
  3. Stephen Sy3,
  4. Catherine Regan3,
  5. Sheona M Mitchell-Foster4,
  6. Josaphat Byamugisha5,6,
  7. Musa Sekikubo5,6,
  8. Heather Armstrong1,
  9. Angeli Rawat2,
  10. Joel Singer7,8,
  11. Gina S Ogilvie2,
  12. Jane J Kim3,
  13. Nicole G Campos3
  1. 1 Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  2. 2 Women’s Health Research Institute, British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  3. 3 Department of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  4. 4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  5. 5 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
  6. 6 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mulago National Referral Hospital, Kampala, Uganda
  7. 7 School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  8. 8 Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Alex K Mezei; alex.k.mezei{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Background Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for women in Uganda, despite the potential for prevention through organised screening. Community-based self-collected human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been proposed to reduce barriers to screening.

Objective Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Advances in Screening and Prevention of Reproductive Cancers (ASPIRE) trial, conducted in Kisenyi, Uganda in April 2014 (n=500). The trial compared screening uptake and compliance with follow-up in two arms: (1) community-based (ie, home or workplace) self-collected HPV testing (facilitated by community health workers) with clinic-based visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) triage of HPV-positive women (‘HPV-VIA’) and (2) clinic-based VIA (‘VIA’). In both arms, VIA was performed at the local health unit by midwives with VIA-positive women receiving immediate treatment with cryotherapy.

Design We informed a Monte Carlo simulation model of HPV infection and cervical cancer with screening uptake, compliance and retrospective cost data from the ASPIRE trial; additional cost, test performance and treatment effectiveness data were drawn from observational studies. The model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of each arm of ASPIRE, as well as an HPV screen-and-treat strategy (‘HPV-ST’) involving community-based self-collected HPV testing followed by treatment for all HPV-positive women at the clinic.

Outcome measures The primary outcomes were reductions in cervical cancer risk and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed in dollars per year of life saved (YLS).

Results HPV-ST was the most effective and cost-effective screening strategy, reducing the lifetime absolute risk of cervical cancer from 4.2% (range: 3.8%–4.7%) to 3.5% (range: 3.2%–4%), 2.8% (range: 2.4%–3.1%) and 2.4% (range: 2.1%–2.7%) with ICERs of US$130 (US$110–US$150) per YLS, US$240 (US$210–US$280) per YLS, and US$470 (US$410–US$550) per YLS when performed one, three and five times per lifetime, respectively. Findings were robust across sensitivity analyses, unless HPV costs were more than quadrupled.

Conclusions Community-based self-collected HPV testing followed by treatment for HPV-positive women has the potential to be an effective and cost-effective screening strategy.

  • cost-effectiveness
  • cervical cancer
  • screening
  • self-collected HPV testing
  • Uganda

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors were involved in the design of the research study, critically assessed the content and agreed with the final decision to publish. AKM and NGC drafted the manuscript. AKM, NGC, CR, SS and JJK conducted the statistical analysis. HNP, AKM and NGC drafted the figures. HNP, JB, MS, SMM-F, JS, HA, AR and GSO designed and ran the ASPIRE trial.

  • Funding This work was supported by the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR), grant number FDN-143339.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Ethics approval University of British Columbia and Makerere University.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement All relevant data are presented in the manuscript and technical appendix.