ObjectiveTo estimate the impact of using the Aptima messenger RNA (mRNA) high-risk human papilloma virus (HR-HPV) assay versus a DNA HR-HPV assay in a primary HPV cervical screening programme.DesignOne hypothetical cohort followed for 3 years through HPV primary cervical screening.SettingEngland.ParticipantsA hypothetical cohort of women aged 25–65 years tested in the National Health Service (NHS) Cervical Screening Programme (CSP) for first call or routine recall testing.MethodsA decision tree parameterised with data from the CSP (2017/18) and the HORIZON study. Uncertainty analyses were conducted using data from the FOCAL and GAST studies, other DNA HPV tests in addition to one-way and probabilistic sensitivity and scenarios analyses, to test the robustness of results.InterventionsAptima mRNA HR-HPV assay and a DNA HR-HPV assay (cobas 4800 HPV assay).Main outcome measuresPrimary: total colposcopies and total costs for the cohort. Secondary: total HPV and cytology tests, number lost to follow-up.ResultsAt baseline for a population of 2.25 million women, an estimated £15.4 million (95% credibility intervals (CI) £6.5 to 24.1 million) could be saved and 28 009 (95% CI 27 499 to 28 527) unnecessary colposcopies averted if Aptima mRNA assays are used instead of a DNA assay, with 90 605 fewer unnecessary HR-HPV and 253 477 cytology tests performed. These savings are due to a lower number of HPV positive samples in the mRNA arm. When data from other primary HPV screening trials were compared, results indicated that using the Aptima mRNA assay generated cost savings and reduced testing in every scenario.ConclusionUsing the Aptima mRNA assay versus a DNA assay would almost certainly yield cost savings and reduce unnecessary testing and procedures, benefiting the NHS and women in the CSP.
Highlights
Using an mRNA HPV test in cervical screening can reduce costs and avoid procedures.
This could benefit both the healthcare system and women by optimizing resource use.
These results can inform choices in cervical screening programs in Canada.
Objective:
Population screening programmes must make good use of resources for the health system and users. To evaluate impacts of the type of diagnostic test in the new French cervical screening programme, an messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) high-risk human papillomavirus assay was compared to a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) high-risk human papillomavirus assay for a hypothetical cohort of women aged 25 to 65 years.
Perspective:
This evaluation takes the perspective of the French healthcare system.
Setting:
France
Methods:
A decision tree model reflecting the French cervical screening algorithms was parametrised using French cost and population data and the Danish Horizon study. The outcomes were total costs, and number of colposcopies, HPV tests and cytology tests for the cohort. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenarios analyses were conducted to test the robustness of results to parameter and structural uncertainty.
Results:
Adopting an mRNA versus DNA assay as part of national cervical screening in France is estimated to save €6.5 million (95% credibility intervals €-1.3 - €13.5 million) and prevent 47,795 (95% credibility intervals 35,309 - 60,139) unnecessary colposcopies, 38,666 unnecessary HPV tests and 121,670 cytology tests over two years for a cohort of 2,168,806 million women aged 25 to 65 years. Sensitivity analyses indicated robust results across a range of inputs.
Conclusion:
The choice of high-risk human papillomavirus assay makes a significant difference to resource use and costs and is important to consider when implementing cervical screening in France. Using an mRNA versus DNA assay can result in cost savings and reductions in unnecessary testing and procedures, which in turn benefits women and the health care system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.