Your browser doesn't support javascript.

BVS APS

Atenção Primária à Saúde

Home > Pesquisa > ()
XML
Imprimir Exportar

Formato de exportação:

Exportar

Email
Adicionar mais destinatários
| |

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

Ong, Koh Jun; Checchi, Marta; Burns, Lorna; Pavitt, Charlotte; Postma, Maarten J; Jit, Mark.
Sex Transm Infect; 95(1): 28-35, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | Jan 2019 | ID: mdl-30674687
Resumo: 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.