| Literature DB >> 26545585 |
Kathryn Schnippel1,2, Pamela Michelow3,4, Carla J Chibwesha5,6, Caroline Makura7, Naomi Lince-Deroche8, Bridgette Goeieman9, Masangu Mulongo10, Suzette Jordaan11,12, Cynthia Firnhaber13,14.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: From 2010 to 2014, approximately 2 million Pap smears from HIV-infected women were submitted to the South African National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS) through the national cervical cancer screening programme. The objective of this analysis was to determine whether using the plastic Cervex brush ("broom") would be a cost-effective approach to improve cytology specimen quality as compared to the wooden spatula used currently.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26545585 PMCID: PMC4636771 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-015-1163-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Fig. 1Counts of normal and abnormal Pap smears reported in the South African public sector, April 2010 to November 2014
Fig. 2Counts of adequate and inadequate specimens evaluated by the NHLS, April 2010 to November 2014
Fig. 3Decision analysis model, diagnosis of cervical dysplasia according to South Africa guidelines (intended practice)
Fig. 4Decision analysis model, diagnosis of cervical dysplasia, typical practice in South Africa
Model input parameters. Parameters used for intended and typical practice models
| Parameter | Mean | CI 95 % | Distribution | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p5 | p95 | ||||
| Women tested (annual count) | 723,829 | 583,056 | 869,393 | Normal | NHLS database |
| Presence of endocervical cells broom vs spatula, odds ratio | 1.57 | 1.44 | 1.70 | Normal | [ |
| Probability of detection of atypia/dyskaryosis in smears with enodcervical cells vs those without, odds ratio | 1.89 | 1.80 | 1.98 | Normal | [ |
| Probability of detection of severe atypia/dyskaryosis in smears with enodcervical cells vs those without, odds ratio | 2.46 | 1.75 | 3.17 | Normal | [ |
| HIV-infected (%) | 51 | 40 | 64 | Binomial | NHLS database |
| HIV-infected women tested (annual count) | 372,340 | 261,707 | 493,988 | Normal | Calculated |
| Abnormal Pap smear (% of all smears) | 73 | 71 | 75 | Binomial | [ |
| HSIL (% of all smears) | 31 | 29 | 33 | Binomial | [ |
| LSIL (% of all smears) | 37 | 35 | 39 | Binomial | [ |
| ASC-US (% of all smears) | 5 | 4 | 6 | Binomial | [ |
| Endocervical cells present, spatula (% of all smears) | 53 | 52 | 54 | Binomial | NHLS database |
| Endocervical cells present, broom (% of all smears) | 83 | 76 | 90 | Binomial | Calculated |
| Sensitivity (%, if endocervical cells present) | 76 | 72 | 80 | Binomial | [ |
| Sensitivity (%, if no endocervical cells present) | 40 | 35 | 45 | Binomial | Calculated |
| Sensitivity HSIL (%, if no endocervical cells present) | 32 | 23 | 44 | Binomial | Calculated |
| Repeat Pap smear done (% of patients) | 90 | 85 | 95 | Binomial | Assumption |
| Smear satisfactory for evaluation (% of all smears) | 98 | 98 | 99 | Binomial | NHLS database |
| Specificity (%) | 84 | 81 | 87 | Binomial | [ |
| Lost to follow-up (% of patients) | 8 | 6 | 10 | Binomial | [ |
Model input parameters. Cost parameters (2014 USD) used for intended and typical practice models
| Parameter | Mean | Distribution | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| USD/ZAR exchange rate 2014 | $ 0.09 | Point | [ |
| Wooden spatula, elongated tip | $ 0.02 | Point | NHLS 2014 |
| Broom (cervex brush, type E) | $ 0.22 | Point | Quotation 2014 |
| Outpatient clinic visit (no bed facility) | $ 8.36 | Point | [ |
| Laboratory test charges (excluding collection device) | $ 4.89 | Point | NHLS 2014 |
Model results
| Spatula | Broom | Incremental difference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | % | 95 % CI | |||
| Guidelines (intended practice) | |||||
| Annual programme cost | $ 6,246,919 | $ 5,575,183 | - $ 671,736 | -11 % | -$ 702,963 to - $ 640,509 |
| Cost per woman screened | $ 16.79 | $ 14.98 | - $ 1.81 | -16 % | - 1.82 to -$ 1.79 |
| Cost per HSIL case detected | $ 78.91 | $ 65.27 | -$ 13.64 | -21 % | -$ 13.76 to -$ 13.52 |
| Abnormal smears detected | 204,181 | 218,403 | 14,222 | 7 % | 13,093 to 15,351 |
| HSIL smears detected | 79,465 | 85,645 | 6,180 | 8 % | 5,726 to 6,634 |
| False negative smears reported | 63,641 | 62,377 | -1,264 | -2 % | -1,631 to -897 |
| No diagnosis (lost to care) | 43,197 | 12,361 | -30,837 | -71 % | -31,033 to -30,640 |
| Typical practice | |||||
| Annual programme cost | $ 5,034,091 | $ 5,113,113 | $ 79,022 | 2 % | $ 52,548 to $ 105,496 |
| Cost per woman screened | $ 13.46 | $ 13.67 | $ 0.21 | 2 % | $ 0.20 to $ 0.22 |
| Cost per HSIL case detected | $ 79.60 | $ 65.05 | -$ 14.55 | -18 % | -$ 14.68 to - $ 14.42 |
| Abnormal smears detected | 172,421 | 204,604 | 32,184 | 19 % | 31,178 to 33,189 |
| HSIL smears detected | 63,566 | 78,861 | 15,295 | 24 % | 14,900 to 15,689 |
| False negative smears reported | 116,082 | 83,898 | - 32,184 | -28 % | -32,748 to 31,619 |
| No diagnosis (lost to care) | 1,223 | 1,223 | 0 | 0 % | -9 to 9 |