The cost-effectiveness of opt-in and send-to-all HPV self-sampling among long-term non-attenders to cervical cancer screening in Norway: The Equalscreen randomized controlled trial

Objective: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of mailing a human papillomavirus self-sampling (HPV-ss) kit, directly or via invitation to order, compared with mailing reminder letters among long-term non-attenders in Norway.Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis using the Equalscreen study data...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Objective: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of mailing a human papillomavirus self-sampling (HPV-ss) kit, directly or via invitation to order, compared with mailing reminder letters among long-term non-attenders in Norway.Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis using the Equalscreen study data with 6000 women aged 35–69 years who had not screened in 10+ years. Participants were equally randomized into three arms: reminder letter (control); invitation to order HPV-ss kit (opt-in); directly mailed HPV-ss kit (send-to-all). Cost-effectiveness (2020 Great British Pounds (GBP)) was estimated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per additional screened woman, and per additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) from extended and direct healthcare perspectives.Results: Participation, CIN2+ detection, and total screening costs were highest in the send-to-all arm, followed by the opt-in and control arms. Non-histological physician appointments contributed to 67% of the total costs in the control arm and ≤ 31% in the self-sampling arms. From an expanded healthcare perspective, the ICERs were 135 GBP and 169 GBP per additional screened woman, and 2864 GBP and 4165 GBP per additional CIN2+ detected for the opt-in and send-to-all, respectively.Conclusions: Opt-in and send-to-all self-sampling were more effective and, depending on willingness-to-pay, may be considered cost-effective alternatives to improve screening attendance in Norway. Ausführliche Beschreibung