Cost–effectiveness analysis is used to compare the costs and outcomes of alternative policy options. Each resulting cost–effectiveness ratio represents the magnitude of additional health gained per additional unit of resources spent. Cost–effectiveness thresholds allow cost–effectiveness ratios that represent good or very good value for money to be identified. In 2001, the World Health Organization’s Commission on Macroeconomics in Health suggested cost–effectiveness thresholds based on multiples of a country’s per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). In some contexts, in choosing which health interventions to fund and which not to fund, these thresholds have been used as decision rules. However, experience with the use of such GDP-based thresholds in decision-making processes at country level shows them to lack country specificity and this – in addition to uncertainty in the modelled cost–effectiveness ratios – can lead to the wrong decision on how to spend health-care resources. Cost–effectiveness information should be used alongside other considerations – e.g. budget impact and feasibility considerations – in a transparent decision-making process, rather than in isolation based on a single threshold value. Although cost–effectiveness ratios are undoubtedly informative in assessing value for money, countries should be encouraged to develop a context-specific process for decision-making that is supported by legislation, has stakeholder buy-in, for example the involvement of civil society organizations and patient groups, and is transparent, consistent and fair.

Background The WHO Director-General has issued a call for action to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To help inform global efforts, we modelled potential human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cervical screening scenarios in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) to examine the feasibility and timing of elimination at different thresholds, and to estimate the number of cervical cancer cases averted on the path to elimination. Methods The WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC), which consists of three independent transmission-dynamic models identified by WHO according to predefined criteria, projected reductions in cervical cancer incidence over time in 78 LMICs for three standardised base-case scenarios: girls-only vaccination; girls-only vaccination and once-lifetime screening; and girls-only vaccination and twice-lifetime screening. Girls were vaccinated at age 9 years (with a catch-up to age 14 years), assuming 90% coverage and 100% lifetime protection against HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Cervical screening involved HPV testing once or twice per lifetime at ages 35 years and 45 years, with uptake increasing from 45% (2023) to 90% (2045 onwards). The elimination thresholds examined were an average age-standardised cervical cancer incidence of four or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years and ten or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, and an 85% or greater reduction in incidence. Sensitivity analyses were done, varying vaccination and screening strategies and assumptions. We summarised results using the median (range) of model predictions. Findings Girls-only HPV vaccination was predicted to reduce the median age-standardised cervical cancer incidence in LMICs from 19•8 (range 19•4-19•8) to 2•1 (2•0-2•6) cases per 100 000 women-years over the next century (89•4% [86•2-90•1] reduction), and to avert 61•0 million (60•5-63•0) cases during this period. Adding twice-lifetime screening reduced the incidence to 0•7 (0•6-1•6) cases per 100 000 women-years (96•7% [91•3-96•7] reduction) and averted an extra 12•1 million (9•5-13•7) cases. Girls-only vaccination was predicted to result in elimination in 60% (58-65) of LMICs based on the threshold of four or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, in 99% (89-100) of LMICs based on the threshold of ten or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, and in 87% (37-99) of LMICs based on the 85% or greater reduction threshold. When adding twice-lifetime screening, 100% (71-100) of LMICs reached elimination for all three thresholds. In regions in which all countries can achieve cervical cancer elimination with girls-only vaccination, elimination could occur between 2059 and 2102, depending on the threshold and region. Introducing twice-lifetime screening accelerated elimination by 11-31 years. Long-term vaccine protection was required for elimination. Interpretation Predictions were consistent across our three models and suggest that high HPV vaccination coverage of girls can lead to cervical cancer elimination in mos...

No abstract

Background WHO is developing a global strategy towards eliminating cervical cancer as a public health problem, which proposes an elimination threshold of four cases per 100 000 women and includes 2030 triple-intervention coverage targets for scale-up of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to 90%, twice-lifetime cervical screening to 70%, and treatment of pre-invasive lesions and invasive cancer to 90%. We assessed the impact of achieving the 90-70-90 tripleintervention targets on cervical cancer mortality and deaths averted over the next century. We also assessed the potential for the elimination initiative to support target 3.4 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-a one-third reduction in premature mortality from non-communicable diseases by 2030. MethodsThe WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC) involves three independent, dynamic models of HPV infection, cervical carcinogenesis, screening, and precancer and invasive cancer treatment. Reductions in age-standardised rates of cervical cancer mortality in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) were estimated for three core scenarios: girls-only vaccination at age 9 years with catch-up for girls aged 10-14 years; girls-only vaccination plus once-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up; and girls-only vaccination plus twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up. Vaccination was assumed to provide 100% lifetime protection against infections with HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, and to scale up to 90% coverage in 2020. Cervical screening involved HPV testing at age 35 years, or at ages 35 years and 45 years, with scale-up to 45% coverage by 2023, 70% by 2030, and 90% by 2045, and we assumed that 50% of women with invasive cervical cancer would receive appropriate surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy by 2023, which would increase to 90% by 2030. We summarised results using the median (range) of model predictions.Findings In 2020, the estimated cervical cancer mortality rate across all 78 LMICs was 13•2 (range 12•9-14•1) per 100 000 women. Compared to the status quo, by 2030, vaccination alone would have minimal impact on cervical cancer mortality, leading to a 0•1% (0•1-0•5) reduction, but additionally scaling up twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 34•2% (23•3-37•8), averting 300 000 (300 000-400 000) deaths by 2030 (with similar results for once-lifetime screening). By 2070, scaling up vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 61•7% (61•4-66•1), averting 4•8 million (4•1-4•8) deaths. By 2070, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 88•9% (84•0-89•3), averting 13•3 million (13•1-13•6) deaths (with once-lifetime screening), or by 92•3% (88•4-93•0), averting 14•6 million (14•1-14•6) deaths (with twice-lifetime screening). By 2120, vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 89•5% (86•6-89•9), averting 45•8 million (44•7-46•4) deaths. By 2120, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce m...

No abstract

WHO.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is potentially an important aid to public health decision-making but, with some notable exceptions, its use and impact at the level of individual countries is limited. A number of potential reasons may account for this, among them technical shortcomings associated with the generation of current economic evidence, political expediency, social preferences and systemic barriers to implementation. As a form of sectoral CEA, Generalized CEA sets out to overcome a number of these barriers to the appropriate use of cost-effectiveness information at the regional and country level. Its application via WHO-CHOICE provides a new economic evidence base, as well as underlying methodological developments, concerning the cost-effectiveness of a range of health interventions for leading causes of, and risk factors for, disease.The estimated sub-regional costs and effects of different interventions provided by WHO-CHOICE can readily be tailored to the specific context of individual countries, for example by adjustment to the quantity and unit prices of intervention inputs (costs) or the coverage, efficacy and adherence rates of interventions (effectiveness). The potential usefulness of this information for health policy and planning is in assessing if current intervention strategies represent an efficient use of scarce resources, and which of the potential additional interventions that are not yet implemented, or not implemented fully, should be given priority on the grounds of cost-effectiveness.Health policy-makers and programme managers can use results from WHO-CHOICE as a valuable input into the planning and prioritization of services at national level, as well as a starting point for additional analyses of the trade-off between the efficiency of interventions in producing health and their impact on other key outcomes such as reducing inequalities and improving the health of the poor.

No abstract