DOI: https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v28i1.700

Costo-efectividad de la detección del virus del papiloma humano en los programas de tamización de cáncer de cuello uterino

Aurelio Mejía, Walter Salas

Resumen


La inclusión de una prueba de detección de ADN del virus del papiloma humano puede hacer más costo-efectivos los programas de tamización de cáncer de cuello uterino. No obstante, las circunstancias para lograrlo son diferentes entre países. El objetivo de este artículo es analizar la relación de costo-efectividad de incorporar la detección del virus del papiloma humano en los programas de tamización de cáncer de cuello uterino, diferenciando los resultados para países desarrollados y en desarrollo. Se hizo una revisión de los artículos publicados entre enero de 2000 y diciembre de 2006, que analizaban la relación de costo-efectividad para estrategias de tamización de cuello uterino que incluían la detección del virus del papiloma humano.
Se analizaron los resultados de 17 artículos originales y seis artículos de revisión. En los países desarrollados la inclusión de la prueba del virus del papiloma humano en los programas de tamización es costo-efectiva en la medida que acompañe la citología y se emplee para el manejo de mujeres con informe de células escamosas atípicas de significado indeterminado en la citología, se aumente el intervalo de las consultas de las mujeres en más de dos años y se realice en mujeres mayores de 30 años. Para los países en vía de desarrollo es necesario establecer primero programas organizados de tamización, y garantizar la cobertura y el acceso al diagnóstico y el tratamiento.

Palabras clave


neoplasias de cuello uterino/diagnóstico; análisis costo-beneficio; diagnóstico precoz; citología; revisión [Tipo de publicación]

Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


1. Muñoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjosé S, Tafur L, Izarzugaza I, Gili M, et al. The causal link between human papillomavirus and invasive cervical cancer: a population-based case-control study in Colombia and Spain. Int J Cancer. 1992;52:743-9. 2. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999;189:12-9. 3. Goldie SJ, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Garnett GP. Public health policy for cervical cancer prevention: The role of decision science, economic evaluation, and mathematical modelling. Vaccine. 2006;24(Suppl.3):S155-63. 4. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. 5. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Indexes. [Consultado: enero de 2006]. Disponible en: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/. 6. Goldie SJ, Freedberg KA, Weinstein MC, Wright TC, Kuntz KM. Cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus testing to augment cervical cancer screening in women infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. Am J Med. 2001;111:140-9. 7. Goldie SJ, Kuhn L, Denny L, Pollack A, Wright TC. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. JAMA. 2001;285:3107-15. 8. Gamzu R, Almog B, Levin I, Fainaru O, Niv J, Lessing JB, et al. Clinical and economic implications of adding HPV tests to the routine cytology follow-up and management of patients with histologically defined cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;86:129-33. 9. Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA. 2002;287:2382-90. 10. Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Gaffikin L, Limpahayom KK, Lumbiganon P, Warakamin S, et al. Costs and benefits of different strategies to screen for cervical cancer in less-developed countries. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1469-83. 11. Duttagupta C, Sengupta S, Roy M, Sengupta D, Chakraborty S, Bhattacharya P, et al. Oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and uterine cervical cancer: a screening strategy in the perspective of rural India. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2002;11:447-56 12. Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Womack SM, Jacobson D, Yi B, Hwang YT, et al. Benefit and costs of using PVH testing to screen for cervical cancer. JAMA. 2002;287:2372-81. 13. Mittendorf T, Petry KU, Iftner T, Greiner W, von der Schulenburg JM. Economic evaluation of human papillomavirus screening in Germany. Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4:209-15. 14. Lytwyn A, Sellors JW, Mahony JB, Daya D, Chapman W, Howard M, et al. Adjunctive human papillomavirus testing in the 2-year follow-up of women with low-grade cervical cytologic abnormalities. A randomized trial and economic evaluation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:1169-75. 15. Goldie SJ, Kim JJ, Wright TC. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or more. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:619-31. 16. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Philips Z. An evaluation of liquid- based cytology and HPV testing within the UK cervical cancer screening programme. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:84-91. 17. Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, France, and Italy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:888-95. 18. Legood R, Gray AM, Mahe C, Wolstenholme J, Jayant K, Nene BM, et al. Screening for cervical cancer in India: How much will it cost? A trial based analysis of the cost per case detected. Int J Cancer. 2005;117:981-7. 19. Goldie SJ, Gaffikin L, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Gordillo-Tobar A, Levin C, Mahé C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in five developing countries. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2158-68. 20. Legood R, Gray A, Wolstenholme J, Moss S. Lifetime effects, costs, and cost effectiveness of testing for human papillomavirus to manage low grade cytological abnormalities: Results of the NHS pilot studies. BMJ. 2006;332:79-85. 21. Bidus MA, Maxwell GL, Kulasingam S, Rose GS, Elkas JC, Chernofsky M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:997-1005. 22. Kulasingam SL, Kim JJ, Lawrence WF, Mandelblatt JS, Myers ER, Schiffman M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis based on the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion Triage Study (ALTS). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:92-100. 23. Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Davies P, Adams J, Normand C, Frater A, et al. A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus testing within a cervical screening programme. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1-196. 24. Goldie SJ. Health economics and cervical cancer prevention: a global perspective. Virus Res. 2002;89:301-9. 25. Goldie SJ. Chapter 15: Public health policy and costeffectiveness analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2003;31:102-10. 26. Holmes J, Lindsay H, Garfield S. The cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus screening for cervical cancer. A review of recent modelling studies. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6:30-7. 27. Goldie SJ, Kim JJ, Myers E. Chapter 19: Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening. Vaccine 2006;24 (Suppl. 3):S164-70. 28. Wright TC Jr, Schiffman M, Solomon D, Thomas JT, Garcia F, Goldie S, et al. Interim guidance for the use of human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:304-9. 29. Lörincz AT, Richart RM. Human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cytology in cervical screening programs. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:959-68. 30. Cuschieri KS, Cubie HA. The role of human papillomavirus testing in cervical screening. J Clin Virol. 2005;32 (Suppl. 1):S34-42. 31. Sherman ME, Lorincz AT, Scott DR, Wacholder S, Castle PE, Glass AG, et al. Baseline cytology, human papillomavirus testing, and risk for cervical neoplasia: A 10-year cohort analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:46-52. 32. van den Akker-van Marle ME, van Ballegooijen M, Rozendaal L, Meijer CJ, Hebbema JD. Extended duration of the detectable stage by adding HPV test in cervical cancer screening. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:1830-3. 33. van den Akker-van Marle ME, van Ballegooijen M, van Oortmarssen GJ, Boer R, Habbema JD. Costeffectiveness of cervical cancer screening: Comparison of screening policies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:193-204. 34. Kiatpongsan S, Niruthisard S, Mutirangura A, Trivijitsilp P, Vasuratna A, Chaithongwongwatthana S, et al. Role of human papillomavirus DNA testing in management of women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:262-5. 35. Melnikow J, Birch S. Human papillomavirus triage of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: Cost-effective, but at what cost? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:82-3. 36. Kim JJ, Leung GH, Woo PP, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of organized versus opportunistic cervical cytology screening in Hong Kong. J Public Health (Oxf). 2004;26:130-7. 37. Parkin DM, Moss SM. An evaluation of screening policies for cervical cancer in England and Wales using a computer simulation model. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1986;40:143-53. 38. Koopmanshap MA, Van Oortmarssen GJ, Van Agt HM, Van Ballegooijen M, Habbema JD, Lubbe KT. Cervical cancer screening: attendance and cost-effectiveness. Inst J Cancer. 1990;45:410-5. 39. Bos AB, Van Ballegooijen M, Van Gessel-Dabe-Kausen AA, Habbema JD. Organised cervical cancer still leads to higher coverage than spontaneous screening in the Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34:1598-601. 40. Suba EJ, Murphy SK, Donnelly AD, Furia LM, Huynh ML, Raab SS. Systems analysis of real-world obstacles to successful cervical cancer prevention in developing countries. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:480-7. 41. Ministerio de Salud. Resolución 4288 de 1996, por la cual se define el Plan de Atención Básica (PAB) del Sistema General de Seguridad Social (SGSSS) y se dictan otras disposiciones. Bogotá D.C.: Ministerio de Salud de la Protección Social; 2004. 42. Profamilia. Encuesta Nacional de Demografía y Salud 2005. Bogotá: Profamilia; 2005. 43. Delgado M, Palma S. Aportaciones de la revisión sistemática y del metanálisis a la salud pública. Rev Esp Salud Pública. 2006;80:483-9. 44. Thornton A, Lee P. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:207-16.


Métricas de artículo

Cargando métricas ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM




Revista Biomédica -  https://doi.org/10.7705/issn.0120-4157
ISSN 0120-4157

Instituto Nacional de Salud
INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE SALUD
Avenida Calle 26 No. 51-20
Apartado aéreo 80334 y 80080
Bogotá, D.C., Colombia, S.A.
Teléfono: 05712207700 Ext. 1386
Correo electrónico: biomedica@ins.gov.co