Table 5.
Results of threshold analyses of selected model parameters in one-way sensitivity analyses
| Variable | Base value | Threshold value at which HPV with genotyping is less cost effectivea than the comparator strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Cytology | ||
| Cytology, sensitivity | 56.1 % | >97.7 % |
| HPV with genotyping, sensitivity | 72.0 % | <35.6 % |
| Annual discount rate, effects | 3.0 % | >17.6 % |
| cobas® HPV test with genotyping, cost | $48.24b | >$148.37b |
| HPV HR only | ||
| HPV HR only, sensitivity | 51.9 % | HPV with genotyping was cost effective at all values |
| HPV with genotyping, sensitivity | 72.0 % | <34.8 % |
| cobas® HPV test with genotyping, cost | $48.24b | >$151.51b |
| Co-testing | ||
| Co-testing, sensitivity | 56.1 % | HPV with genotyping was cost effective at all values |
| HPV with genotyping, sensitivity | 72.0 % | <28.9 % |
| cobas® HPV test with genotyping, cost | $48.24b | >$174.18b |
HPV human papillomavirus, HPV HR human papillomavirus, high-risk, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, QALY quality-adjusted life year, USD United States dollars
aThe ICER for HPV with genotyping exceeded >$50,000/QALY (negative net monetary benefit) compared with the comparator screening strategy
b2013 USD