Publication

Systematic review and evidence synthesis of non-cervical human papillomavirus-related disease health system costs and quality of life estimates

Ong, K. J., Checchi, M., Burns, L., Pavitt, C., Postma, M. J. & Jit, M., Feb-2019, In : Sexually Transmitted Infections. 95, 1, p. 28-35 8 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Copy link to clipboard

Documents

  • Systematic review and evidence synthesis of non- cervical human papillomavirus-related disease health system costs and quality of life estimates

    Final publisher's version, 1 MB, PDF-document

    Request copy

DOI

Background: Many economic evaluations of human papillomavirus vaccination should ideally consider multiple disease outcomes, including anogenital warts, respiratory papillomatosis and non-cervical cancers (eg, anal, oropharyngeal, penile, vulvar and vaginal cancers). However, published economic evaluations largely relied on estimates from single studies or informal rapid literature reviews. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of articles up to June 2016 to identify costs and utility estimates admissible for an economic evaluation from a single-payer healthcare provider's perspective. Meta-analyses were performed for studies that used same utility elicitation tools for similar diseases. Costs were adjusted to 2016/2017 US$. Results: Sixty-one papers (35 costs; 24 utilities; 2 costs and utilities) were selected from 10 742 initial records. Cost per case ranges were US$124-US$883 (anogenital warts), US$6912-US$52 579 (head and neck cancers), US$12 936-US$51 571 (anal cancer), US$17 524-34 258 (vaginal cancer), US$14 686-US$28 502 (vulvar cancer) and US$9975-US$27 629 (penile cancer). The total cost for 14 adult patients with recurrent respiratory papillomatosis was US$137 601 (one paper). Utility per warts episode ranged from 0.651 to 1 (12 papers, various utility elicitation methods), with pooled mean EQ-5D and EQ-VAS of 0.86 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.87) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.75), respectively. Fifteen papers reported utilities in head and neck cancers with range 0.29 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.76) to 0.94 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.0). Mean utility reported ranged from 0.5 (95% CI 0.4 to 0.61) to 0.65 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.75) (anal cancer), 0.59 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.64) (vaginal cancer), 0.65 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.70) (vulvar cancer) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.84) (penile cancer). Conclusions: Differences in values reported from each paper reflect variations in cancer site, disease stages, study population, treatment modality/setting and utility elicitation methods used. As patient management changes over time, corresponding effects on both costs and utility need to be considered to ensure health economic assumptions are up-to-date and closely reflect the case mix of patients.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)28-35
Number of pages8
JournalSexually Transmitted Infections
Volume95
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Feb-2019

    Keywords

  • cost-effectiveness, HPV, meta-analysis, systematic reviews, vaccination, adult, anus cancer, article, cancer localization, cancer patient, cancer staging, case mix, condyloma acuminatum, cost effectiveness analysis, female, head and neck cancer, health care personnel, human, larynx papillomatosis, male, meta analysis, nonhuman, patient care, penis cancer, quality of life, synthesis, systematic review, vagina cancer, vulva cancer, Wart virus

View graph of relations

ID: 92176231