Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

A cost-utility analysis of cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus vaccination in the Philippines

Authors: Anna Melissa Guerrero, Anne Julienne Genuino, Melanie Santillan, Naiyana Praditsitthikorn, Varit Chantarastapornchit, Yot Teerawattananon, Marissa Alejandria, Jean Anne Toral

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer cases and deaths among Filipino women because of inadequate access to screening and treatment services.  This study aims to evaluate the health and economic benefits of HPV vaccination and its combination with different screening strategies to find the most optimal preventive strategy in the Philippines.

Methods

A cost-utility analysis was conducted using an existing semi-Markov model to evaluate different screening (i.e., Pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid) and vaccination strategies against HPV infection implemented alone or as part of a combination strategy at different coverage scenarios. The model was run using country-specific epidemiologic, cost and clinical parameters from a health system perspective. Sensitivity analysis was performed for vaccine efficacy, duration of protection and costs of vaccination, screening and treatment.

Results

Across all coverage scenarios, VIA has been shown to be a dominant and cost-saving screening strategy with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging from dominant to Php 61,059 (1443 USD) per QALY gained. VIA can reduce cervical cancer cases and deaths by 25 %. Pap smear screening was found to be not cost-effective due to its high cost in the Philippines. Adding HPV vaccination at a cost of 54 USD per vaccinated girl on top of VIA screening was found to be potentially cost-effective using a threshold of 1 GDP per capita (i.e., Php 120,000 or 2835 USD/ QALY) with the most favorable assumption of providing lifelong immunity against high-risk oncogenic HPV types 16/18. The highest incremental QALY gain was achieved with 80 % coverage of the combined strategy of VIA at 35 to 45 years old done every five years following vaccination at 11 years of age with an ICER of Php 33,126 (783 USD). This strategy may result in a two-thirds reduction in cervical cancer burden. HPV vaccination is not cost-effective when vaccine protection lasts for less than 20 years.

Conclusion

High VIA coverage targeting women aged 35–45 years old at five-year intervals is the most efficient and cost-saving strategy in reducing cervical cancer burden in the Philippines. Adding a vaccination program at high coverage among 11-year-old girls is potentially cost-effective in the Philippines assuming a life-long duration of vaccine efficacy.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Domingo EJ, Noviani R, Noor MRM, Ngelangel CA, Limpaphayom KK, Van Thuan T, et al. Epidemiology and prevention of cervical cancer in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. Vaccine. 2008;26:M71–9.
4.
Society PC. Philippine Cancer Facts and Estimates 2010. Manila: Philippine Cancer Society Manila Cancer Registry and the Department of Health Rizal Cancer Registry; 2010.
5.
WHO/ICO. Human Papillomavirus and Related Cancers Summary Report 2010 for the Philippines. Barcelona, Spain: WHO/ICO Information Centre on HPV and Cervical Cancer; 2010.
6.
DOH Philippines. Administrative Order no. 3-B s. 1997: Department of Health Guidelines on papanicolaou smear procedure. Manila: DOH Philippines; 1997.
7.
University of the Philippines-Department of Health Cervical Cancer Screening Study Group. Delineation of an appropriate and replicable cervical cancer screening program for Filipino women. Manila: University of the Philippines-Department of Health Cervical Cancer Screening Study Group; 2001.
8.
DOH Philippines. Administrative order no. 2005–2006: Establishment of a cervical cancer screening program. Manila: DOH Philippines; 2005.
9.
Cancer WHOIAfRo. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, vol. 90. Lyon, France: World Health Organization; 2007.
10.
de Sanjose S, Quint WG, Alemany L, Geraets DT, Klaustermeier JE, Lloveras B, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(11):1048–56.
11.
Franco EL, Rohan TE, Villa LL. Epidemiologic evidence and human papillomavirus infection as a necessary cause of cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(6):506–11.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Ngelangel C, Muñoz N, Bosch FX, Festin MR, Deacon J, Jacobs MV, et al. Causes of cervical cancer in the Philippines: a case–control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(1):43–9.
13.
Quek SC, Lim BK, Domingo E, Soon R, Park J-S, Vu TN, et al. Human papillomavirus type distribution in invasive cervical cancer and high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia across 5 countries in Asia. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(1):148–56.
14.
15.
World Health Organization. Human papillomavirus vaccines. WHO position paper. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2009;84(15):118–31.
16.
International Health Policy Program HITAP. The Progress Report: Research for Development of an Optimal Policy Strategy for Prevention and Control of Cervical Cancer in Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Population and Reproductive Health Capacity Building Program, The World Bank; 2007.
17.
Praditsitthikorn N, Teerawattananon Y, Tantivess S, Limwattananon S, Riewpaiboon A, Chichareon S, et al. Economic evaluation of policy options for prevention and control of cervical cancer in Thailand. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(9):781–806.
18.
Drummond MF. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
19.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):80.
20.
Walker DG, Hutubessy R, Beutels P. WHO Guide for standardisation of economic evaluations of immunization programmes. Vaccine. 2010;28(11):2356–9.CrossRefPubMed
21.
DOH Philippines. Formulary Executive Council Guidelines. Manila: DOH Philippines; 2013.
22.
Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, Bastian L, Matchar DB. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151(12):1158–71.CrossRefPubMed
23.
WHO Global Health Observatory Data Repository 2011 for the Philippines [http://​apps.​who.​int/​gho/​data/​view.​main.​LT62150?​lang=​en]
24.
Redaniel MT, Laudico A, Mirasol-Lumague MR, Gondos A, Uy GL, Toral JA, et al. Ethnicity and health care in cervical cancer survival: comparisons between a Filipino resident population, Filipino-Americans, and Caucasians. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2009;18(8):2228–34.
25.
Rambout L, Hopkins L, Hutton B, Fergusson D. Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomavirus infection and disease in women: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Can Med Assoc J. 2007;177(5):469–79.CrossRef
26.
Philippine Statistics Authority-National Statistical Coordination Board. Summary of Projected Population, by Five-Year Interval, Philippines: 2000–2040. Manilas: Philippine Statistics Authority-National Statistical Coordination Board; 2013.
27.
Sritipsukho P. The Systematic Review of the Operating Characteristics of Screening Tests Including VIA, PAP smear, and HPV DNA testing. Bangkok: International Health Policy Program, Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Population and Reproductive Health Capacity Building Program, The World Bank; 2007.
28.
Tongsiri S. The Thai Population-based Preference Scores for EQ-5D health states. London: University of London; 2009.
29.
EuroQol G. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 1990;16(3):199.CrossRef
30.
Chichareon S. Economic burden of life-time treatment cost, and quality of life among invasive cervical cancer patients treated at university hospitals and cancer centers in Thailand. In: The Thai Gynecologic Oncology Collaborative Group, editor. Clinical Research Collaboration Network. 2008.
31.
Philippine Statistics Authority - National Statistics Coordination Board. Consumer Price Index for All Income Households in the Philippines by Major Commodity Group. Manila: Philippine Statistics Authority - National Statistics Coordination Board; 2013.
32.
33.
DOH Philippines. HPV Vaccine - Dossier for Inclusion in the Philippine National Formulary. Manila: DOH Philippines; 2013.
34.
DOH Philippines. Implementation costs of the Expanded Program on Immunization. Manila: DOH Philippines; 2013.
35.
Philippine Health Insurance Corporation. Database on claims for cervical procedures and standard Philhealth-Z benefit case-rates for cervical cancer 2011–2012. Manila: Philippine Health Insurance Corporation; 2013.
36.
Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of the Philippines. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer. Manila: Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of the Philippines; 2012.
37.
DOH Philippines. Drug Price Reference Index database 2012. Manila: DOH Philippines; 2012.
38.
Group TTGOC. Tumour Registry Database: Cervical Cancer. Bangkok, Thailand; 2007.
39.
Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
40.
Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(5):479–500.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL, Wordsworth S. Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
42.
Pa S. The Systematic Review of the Operating Characteristics of Screening Tests Including VIA, PAP Smear, and HPV DNA testing. Bangkok, Thailand: International Health Policy Program, Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Population and Reproductive Health Capacity Building Program, The World Bank; 2007.
43.
Ngelangel C, Limson G, Cordero C, Abelardo A, Avila J, Festin M, et al. Acetic-acid guided visual inspection vs. cytology-based screening for cervical cancer in the Philippines. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2003;83(2):141–50.
44.
Goldie SJ, Gaffikin L, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Gordillo-Tobar A, Levin C, Mahé C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in five developing countries. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(20):2158–68.
45.
46.
McCredie MRSK, Paul C, Baranyai J, Medley G, Jones RW, Skegg DC. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncology. 2008;9(5):425–34.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Tomljenovic L, Pierre Spinosa J, A Shaw C. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines as an option for preventing cervical malignancies:(how) effective and safe? Curr Pharm Des. 2013;19(8):1466–87.PubMed
48.
Roteli-Martins CM, Naud P, De Borba P, Teixeira JC, De Carvalho NS, Zahaf T, et al. Sustained immunogenicity and efficacy of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine: up to 8.4 years of follow-up. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. 2012;8(3):390–7.
49.
World Health Organization. Background paper for SAGE discussions: Evidence Based Recommendations on Human papilloma Virus (HPV) Vaccines Schedules. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2014.
50.
Malagón T, Drolet M, Boily M-C, Franco EL, Jit M, Brisson J, et al. Cross-protective efficacy of two human papillomavirus vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(10):781–9.
51.
Gerhardus A, Razum O. A long story made too short: surrogate variables and the communication of HPV vaccine trial results. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010;64(5):377–8.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Joura EA, Leodolter S, Hernandez-Avila M, Wheeler CM, Perez G, Koutsky LA, et al. Efficacy of a quadrivalent prophylactic human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like-particle vaccine against high-grade vulval and vaginal lesions: a combined analysis of three randomised clinical trials. Lancet. 2007;369(9574):1693–702.
Metadata
Title
A cost-utility analysis of cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus vaccination in the Philippines
Authors
Anna Melissa Guerrero
Anne Julienne Genuino
Melanie Santillan
Naiyana Praditsitthikorn
Varit Chantarastapornchit
Yot Teerawattananon
Marissa Alejandria
Jean Anne Toral
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2046-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Go to the issue

Debate

The stigmatization dilemma in public health policy-the case of MRSA in Denmark

Research article

Filter presence and tipping paper color influence consumer perceptions of cigarettes

Research article

Adolescents’ use of the built environment for physical activity

Research article

Associations of psychological capital, demographic and occupational factors with cigarette smoking among Chinese underground coal miners

Research article

Pregnancy wastage among HIV infected women in a high HIV prevalence district of India

Research article

Diet, physical activity and socio-economic disparities of obesity in Lebanese adults: findings from a national study