Options for managing low grade cervical abnormalities detected at screening: cost effectiveness study

Dave Whynes (Corresponding Author), Zoe Philips, Claire Woolley, Seonaidh Cotton, Maggie Cruickshank, Kirsten Harrild, Julian Little, Keith Neal, Linda Sharp, Norman Waugh, The TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears) Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To estimate the cost effectiveness of alternative methods of managing low grade cervical cytological abnormalities detected at routine screening.

Design Cost analysis within multicentre individually randomised controlled trial.

Setting Grampian, Tayside, and Nottingham.

Participants 4201 women with low grade abnormalities.

Interventions Cytological surveillance or referral to colposcopy for biopsy and recall if necessary or referral to colposcopy with immediate treatment based on colposcopic appearance.

Main outcome measures Data on resource use collected from participants throughout the duration of the trial (36 months), enabling the estimation of both the direct (health care) and indirect (time and travel) costs of management. Quality of life assessed at recruitment and at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months, using the EQ-5D instrument. Economic outcomes expressed as costs per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade II or worse) detected, by trial arm, as confirmed at exit, and cost utility ratios (cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained) for the three pairwise comparisons of trial arms.

Results The mean three year discounted costs of surveillance, immediate treatment, and biopsy and recall were £150.20 (€177, $249), £240.30 (€283, $415), and £241.10 (€284, $4000), respectively, viewed from the health service perspective. From the social perspective, mean discounted costs were £204.40 (€241, $339), £339.90 (€440, $563), and £327.50 (€386, $543), respectively. Estimated at the means, the incremental cost effectiveness ratios indicated that immediate treatment was dominated by the other two management methods, although it did offer the lowest cost per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia detected and treated. The pronounced skews in the distributions indicated that probabilistic uncertainty analysis would offer more meaningful estimates of cost effectiveness. The observed differences in the cost effectiveness ratios between trial arms were not significant.

Conclusion Judged within the time frame of the TOMBOLA evaluation, there is no compelling economic reason to favour any one follow-up method over either of the others.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberb2549
Number of pages7
JournalBritish Medical Journal
Volume339
Issue number-
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 Jul 2009

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Colposcopy
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia
Referral and Consultation
Economics
Biopsy
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Uncertainty
Health Services
Therapeutics
Randomized Controlled Trials
Quality of Life
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Delivery of Health Care

Cite this

Whynes, D., Philips, Z., Woolley, C., Cotton, S., Cruickshank, M., Harrild, K., ... The TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears) Group (2009). Options for managing low grade cervical abnormalities detected at screening: cost effectiveness study. British Medical Journal, 339(-), [b2549]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2549

Options for managing low grade cervical abnormalities detected at screening : cost effectiveness study. / Whynes, Dave (Corresponding Author); Philips, Zoe; Woolley, Claire; Cotton, Seonaidh; Cruickshank, Maggie; Harrild, Kirsten; Little, Julian; Neal, Keith; Sharp, Linda; Waugh, Norman; The TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears) Group.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 339, No. -, b2549, 28.07.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Whynes, D, Philips, Z, Woolley, C, Cotton, S, Cruickshank, M, Harrild, K, Little, J, Neal, K, Sharp, L, Waugh, N & The TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears) Group 2009, 'Options for managing low grade cervical abnormalities detected at screening: cost effectiveness study', British Medical Journal, vol. 339, no. -, b2549. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2549
Whynes, Dave ; Philips, Zoe ; Woolley, Claire ; Cotton, Seonaidh ; Cruickshank, Maggie ; Harrild, Kirsten ; Little, Julian ; Neal, Keith ; Sharp, Linda ; Waugh, Norman ; The TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears) Group. / Options for managing low grade cervical abnormalities detected at screening : cost effectiveness study. In: British Medical Journal. 2009 ; Vol. 339, No. -.
@article{b99a753d7d3d44ecbf381af9f8d4b6ad,
title = "Options for managing low grade cervical abnormalities detected at screening: cost effectiveness study",
abstract = "Objective To estimate the cost effectiveness of alternative methods of managing low grade cervical cytological abnormalities detected at routine screening.Design Cost analysis within multicentre individually randomised controlled trial.Setting Grampian, Tayside, and Nottingham.Participants 4201 women with low grade abnormalities.Interventions Cytological surveillance or referral to colposcopy for biopsy and recall if necessary or referral to colposcopy with immediate treatment based on colposcopic appearance.Main outcome measures Data on resource use collected from participants throughout the duration of the trial (36 months), enabling the estimation of both the direct (health care) and indirect (time and travel) costs of management. Quality of life assessed at recruitment and at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months, using the EQ-5D instrument. Economic outcomes expressed as costs per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade II or worse) detected, by trial arm, as confirmed at exit, and cost utility ratios (cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained) for the three pairwise comparisons of trial arms.Results The mean three year discounted costs of surveillance, immediate treatment, and biopsy and recall were £150.20 (€177, $249), £240.30 (€283, $415), and £241.10 (€284, $4000), respectively, viewed from the health service perspective. From the social perspective, mean discounted costs were £204.40 (€241, $339), £339.90 (€440, $563), and £327.50 (€386, $543), respectively. Estimated at the means, the incremental cost effectiveness ratios indicated that immediate treatment was dominated by the other two management methods, although it did offer the lowest cost per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia detected and treated. The pronounced skews in the distributions indicated that probabilistic uncertainty analysis would offer more meaningful estimates of cost effectiveness. The observed differences in the cost effectiveness ratios between trial arms were not significant.Conclusion Judged within the time frame of the TOMBOLA evaluation, there is no compelling economic reason to favour any one follow-up method over either of the others.",
author = "Dave Whynes and Zoe Philips and Claire Woolley and Seonaidh Cotton and Maggie Cruickshank and Kirsten Harrild and Julian Little and Keith Neal and Linda Sharp and Norman Waugh and {The TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears) Group}",
year = "2009",
month = "7",
day = "28",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.b2549",
language = "English",
volume = "339",
journal = "BMJ",
issn = "0959-8146",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "-",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Options for managing low grade cervical abnormalities detected at screening

T2 - cost effectiveness study

AU - Whynes, Dave

AU - Philips, Zoe

AU - Woolley, Claire

AU - Cotton, Seonaidh

AU - Cruickshank, Maggie

AU - Harrild, Kirsten

AU - Little, Julian

AU - Neal, Keith

AU - Sharp, Linda

AU - Waugh, Norman

AU - The TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears) Group

PY - 2009/7/28

Y1 - 2009/7/28

N2 - Objective To estimate the cost effectiveness of alternative methods of managing low grade cervical cytological abnormalities detected at routine screening.Design Cost analysis within multicentre individually randomised controlled trial.Setting Grampian, Tayside, and Nottingham.Participants 4201 women with low grade abnormalities.Interventions Cytological surveillance or referral to colposcopy for biopsy and recall if necessary or referral to colposcopy with immediate treatment based on colposcopic appearance.Main outcome measures Data on resource use collected from participants throughout the duration of the trial (36 months), enabling the estimation of both the direct (health care) and indirect (time and travel) costs of management. Quality of life assessed at recruitment and at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months, using the EQ-5D instrument. Economic outcomes expressed as costs per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade II or worse) detected, by trial arm, as confirmed at exit, and cost utility ratios (cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained) for the three pairwise comparisons of trial arms.Results The mean three year discounted costs of surveillance, immediate treatment, and biopsy and recall were £150.20 (€177, $249), £240.30 (€283, $415), and £241.10 (€284, $4000), respectively, viewed from the health service perspective. From the social perspective, mean discounted costs were £204.40 (€241, $339), £339.90 (€440, $563), and £327.50 (€386, $543), respectively. Estimated at the means, the incremental cost effectiveness ratios indicated that immediate treatment was dominated by the other two management methods, although it did offer the lowest cost per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia detected and treated. The pronounced skews in the distributions indicated that probabilistic uncertainty analysis would offer more meaningful estimates of cost effectiveness. The observed differences in the cost effectiveness ratios between trial arms were not significant.Conclusion Judged within the time frame of the TOMBOLA evaluation, there is no compelling economic reason to favour any one follow-up method over either of the others.

AB - Objective To estimate the cost effectiveness of alternative methods of managing low grade cervical cytological abnormalities detected at routine screening.Design Cost analysis within multicentre individually randomised controlled trial.Setting Grampian, Tayside, and Nottingham.Participants 4201 women with low grade abnormalities.Interventions Cytological surveillance or referral to colposcopy for biopsy and recall if necessary or referral to colposcopy with immediate treatment based on colposcopic appearance.Main outcome measures Data on resource use collected from participants throughout the duration of the trial (36 months), enabling the estimation of both the direct (health care) and indirect (time and travel) costs of management. Quality of life assessed at recruitment and at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months, using the EQ-5D instrument. Economic outcomes expressed as costs per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade II or worse) detected, by trial arm, as confirmed at exit, and cost utility ratios (cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained) for the three pairwise comparisons of trial arms.Results The mean three year discounted costs of surveillance, immediate treatment, and biopsy and recall were £150.20 (€177, $249), £240.30 (€283, $415), and £241.10 (€284, $4000), respectively, viewed from the health service perspective. From the social perspective, mean discounted costs were £204.40 (€241, $339), £339.90 (€440, $563), and £327.50 (€386, $543), respectively. Estimated at the means, the incremental cost effectiveness ratios indicated that immediate treatment was dominated by the other two management methods, although it did offer the lowest cost per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia detected and treated. The pronounced skews in the distributions indicated that probabilistic uncertainty analysis would offer more meaningful estimates of cost effectiveness. The observed differences in the cost effectiveness ratios between trial arms were not significant.Conclusion Judged within the time frame of the TOMBOLA evaluation, there is no compelling economic reason to favour any one follow-up method over either of the others.

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.b2549

DO - 10.1136/bmj.b2549

M3 - Article

VL - 339

JO - BMJ

JF - BMJ

SN - 0959-8146

IS - -

M1 - b2549

ER -