Use of the Aptima mRNA high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) assay compared to a DNA HR-HPV assay in the English cervical screening programme: a decision tree model based economic evaluation

Abstract

ObjectiveTo estimate the impact of using the Aptima messenger RNA (mRNA) high-risk human papilloma virus (HR-HPV) assay versus a DNA HR-HPV assay in a primary HPV cervical screening programme.DesignOne hypothetical cohort followed for 3 years through HPV primary cervical screening.SettingEngland.ParticipantsA hypothetical cohort of women aged 25–65 years tested in the National Health Service (NHS) Cervical Screening Programme (CSP) for first call or routine recall testing.MethodsA decision tree parameterised with data from the CSP (2017/18) and the HORIZON study. Uncertainty analyses were conducted using data from the FOCAL and GAST studies, other DNA HPV tests in addition to one-way and probabilistic sensitivity and scenarios analyses, to test the robustness of results.InterventionsAptima mRNA HR-HPV assay and a DNA HR-HPV assay (cobas 4800 HPV assay).Main outcome measuresPrimary: total colposcopies and total costs for the cohort. Secondary: total HPV and cytology tests, number lost to follow-up.ResultsAt baseline for a population of 2.25 million women, an estimated £15.4 million (95% credibility intervals (CI) £6.5 to 24.1 million) could be saved and 28 009 (95% CI 27 499 to 28 527) unnecessary colposcopies averted if Aptima mRNA assays are used instead of a DNA assay, with 90 605 fewer unnecessary HR-HPV and 253 477 cytology tests performed. These savings are due to a lower number of HPV positive samples in the mRNA arm. When data from other primary HPV screening trials were compared, results indicated that using the Aptima mRNA assay generated cost savings and reduced testing in every scenario.ConclusionUsing the Aptima mRNA assay versus a DNA assay would almost certainly yield cost savings and reduce unnecessary testing and procedures, benefiting the NHS and women in the CSP.