Primary HPV screening compared with other cervical cancer screening strategies in women with HIV: a cost-effectiveness study.

Abstract

To compare the model-predicted benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of cytology, cotesting, and primary HPV screening in U.S. women living with HIV (WLWH). We adapted a previously published Markov decision model to simulate a cohort of U.S. WLWH. United States. A hypothetical inception cohort of WLWH. We simulated five screening strategies all assumed the same strategy of cytology with HPV triage for ASCUS for women aged 21 to 29 years. The different strategies noted are for women aged 30 and older as the following: continue cytology with HPV triage, cotesting with repeat cotesting triage, cotesting with HPV16/18 genotyping triage, primary hrHPV testing with cytology triage, and primary hrHPV testing with HPV16/18 genotyping triage. The outcomes include colposcopies, false-positive results, treatments, cancers, cancer deaths, life-years and costs, and lifetime quality-adjusted life-years. Compared with no screening, screening was cost-saving, and > 96% of cervical cancers and deaths could be prevented. Cytology with HPV triage dominated primary HPV screening and cotesting. At willingness-to-pay thresholds under $250,000, probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that primary HPV testing was more cost-effective than cotesting in over 98% of the iterations. Our study suggests the current cytology-based screening recommendation is cost-effective, but that primary HPV screening could be a cost-effective alternative to cotesting. To improve the cost-effectiveness of HPV-based screening, increased acceptance of the HPV test among targeted women is needed, as are alternative follow-up recommendations to limit the harms of high false-positive testing.