Exploring the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination in Vietnam: Insights for evidence-based cervical cancer prevention policy
Department of Health Policy and Management, Program in Health Decision Science, Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Vaccine
(Impact Factor: 3.62).
07/2008; 26(32):4015-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.05.038
Using mathematical models of cervical cancer for the northern and southern regions of Vietnam, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer prevention strategies and the tradeoffs between a national and region-based policy in Vietnam. With 70% vaccination and screening coverage, lifetime risk of cancer was reduced by 20.4-76.1% with vaccination of pre-adolescent girls and/or screening of older women. Only when the cost per vaccinated girl was low (i.e., <I$25) was vaccination combined with screening (three times per lifetime or every 5 years) favored in both regions; at high costs per vaccinated girl (i.e., >I$100), screening alone was most cost-effective. When optimal policies differed between regions, implementing a national strategy resulted in health and economic inefficiencies. HPV vaccination appears to be an attractive cervical cancer prevention strategy for Vietnam, provided high coverage can be achieved in young pre-adolescent girls, cost per vaccinated girl is <I$25 (i.e., <$5 per dose), and screening is offered at older ages.
Available from: Monisha Sharma
- "Health outcomes were reported as a mean and range of results, while incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported as the ratio of the difference in mean costs divided by the difference in mean effects across the good-fitting parameter sets for one strategy compared with the next best alternative. The calibration process has been previously described        and details of the calibration data, methods, and results for all three countries are provided in the Appendix. Strategies that were evaluated in this analysis include: (1) HPV16/18 vaccination of pre-adolescent girls (by age 12); (2) screening alone; and (3) combined pre-adolescent HPV16/18 vaccination and screening. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To date, no studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in countries in the Extended Middle East and North Africa (EMENA) region. We synthesized population and epidemiologic data for 20 EMENA countries using a model-based approach to estimate averted cervical cancer cases and deaths, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and cost-effectiveness ratios (I$ [international dollars] per DALY averted) associated with HPV vaccination of pre-adolescent girls. We utilized additional epidemiologic data from Algeria, Lebanon, and Turkey to evaluate select cervical cancer screening strategies either alone or in combination with vaccination. Results showed that pre-adolescent vaccination of five consecutive birth cohorts at 70% coverage has the potential to prevent over 180,000 cervical cancer cases. Cases averted varied by country, largely due to differences in cancer burden and population size; 69% of cases averted occurred in the three GAVI-eligible countries in EMENA. Despite the low cervical cancer incidence in EMENA, we found that HPV vaccination was cost-effective using a threshold of each country's gross domestic product per capita (a common metric for evaluating cost-effectiveness) in all but five countries at a cost per vaccinated girl of I$25 ($5 per dose). However, cost-effectiveness diminished with increasing vaccine cost; at a cost of I$200 per vaccinated girl, HPV vaccination was cost-effective in only five countries. When the cost per vaccinated girl exceeded I$50 in Lebanon and Turkey and I$150 in Algeria, screening alone was most attractive. We identified opportunities to improve upon current national screening guidelines, involving less frequent screening every 3-5 years. While pre-adolescent HPV vaccination promises to be a cost-effective strategy in most EMENA countries at low costs, decision makers will need to consider many other factors, such as affordability, acceptability, feasibility, and competing health priorities, when making decisions about cervical cancer prevention. This article forms part of a regional report entitled "Comprehensive Control of HPV Infections and Related Diseases in the Extended Middle East and North Africa Region" Vaccine Volume 31, Supplement 6, 2013. Updates of the progress in the field are presented in a separate monograph entitled "Comprehensive Control of HPV Infections and Related Diseases" Vaccine Volume 30, Supplement 5, 2012.
Vaccine 12/2013; 31S6:G65-G77. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.06.096 · 3.62 Impact Factor
Available from: Carolyn Nickson
- "found that vaccination combined with regular 5-yearly screening was not cost-effective even at low CVGs because the incremental costs were too expensive compared to vaccination combined with twice-lifetime screening. For HBV vaccination in China, the proportion of total vaccination costs related to direct vaccine costs for 3 doses has been reported as 56–75%   ; this range is consistent with prior HPV vaccination evaluations in developing countries   . Thus, the maximum vaccine unit cost per dose in order for strategies involving vaccination to be cost-effective, implied by our maximum CVG of $50–54, is $9–14 (Table 2). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Comprehensive evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination in China has not previously been performed. The objective of this study was to evaluate vaccination as an alternative or addition to primary HPV screening with careHPV (Qiagen, Gaithersburg, USA), and to assess the threshold total cost per vaccinated girl (CVG) at which strategies involving vaccination would become viable compared to screening-only strategies in rural China. We used data from field studies in Shanxi Province to support modelling of HPV vaccination and screening, including local information on sexual behaviour, HPV prevalence, test accuracy, treatment protocols and costs. We evaluated several strategies involving screening once or twice per lifetime or at regular 5-yearly intervals, with or without vaccination of young females at age 15 years, assuming 70% coverage for both screening and vaccination. We also predicted cross-sectional cancer incidence each year to the year 2050 for a range of strategies. We found that strategies involving vaccination would be cost-effective at CVGs of US$50-54 or less, but at CVGs >$54, screening-only strategies would be more cost-effective. If vaccination of young cohorts is combined with two rounds of careHPV screening for women aged 30-59 years in 2012 and 2027, a predicted indicative 33% reduction in cervical cancer incidence by 2030 would be sustained until 2050, with incidence rates decreasing thereafter. In conclusion, taking into account estimated vaccine delivery costs (for 3 doses), a per-dose HPV vaccine cost of approximately <$9-14 would be required for strategies involving vaccination to be cost-effective. Overall, combined screening and vaccination approaches are required to maximise outcomes in rural China.
Vaccine 03/2011; 29(13):2487-94. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.12.085 · 3.62 Impact Factor
Available from: Yee Leong Teoh
- "Before any universal vaccine implementation, it is important for policymakers to understand the long-term benefits (beyond the time horizon of clinical trials) of the vaccine by using mathematical modelling in a decision-analytic framework [9-17]. Extending previous studies of HPV vaccination, we compare the status quo of cervical cancer screening only and vaccination with a quadrivalent or bivalent vaccine in addition to baseline screening. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are widely available and there have been studies exploring their potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness. However, few studies have compared the cost-effectiveness among the 2 main vaccines available - a bivalent vaccine against HPV 16/18, and a quadrivalent vaccine against 6/11/16/18. We explore the cost-effectiveness of these two HPV vaccines in tropical Singapore.
We developed a Markov state-transition model to represent the natural history of cervical cancer to predict HPV infection, cancer incidence, mortality, and costs. Cytologic screening and treatment of different outcomes of HPV infection were incorporated. Vaccination was provided to a cohort of 12-year old females in Singapore, followed up until death. Based on available vaccines on the market, the bivalent vaccine had increased effectiveness against a wider range of HPV types, while the quadrivalent vaccine had effectiveness against genital warts. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) compared vaccination to no-vaccination, and between the two vaccines. Sensitivity analyses explored differences in vaccine effectiveness and uptake, and other key input parameters.
For the no vaccination scenario, 229 cervical cancer cases occurred over the cohort's lifetime. The total discounted cost per individual due to HPV infection was SGD$275 with 28.54 discounted life-years. With 100% vaccine coverage, the quadrivalent vaccine reduced cancers by 176, and had an ICER of SGD$12,866 per life-year saved. For the bivalent vaccine, 197 cancers were prevented with an ICER of $12,827 per life-year saved. Comparing the bivalent to the quadrivalent vaccine, the ICER was $12,488 per life-year saved. However, the cost per QALY saved for the quadrivalent vaccine compared to no vaccine was $9,071, while it was $10,392 for the bivalent vaccine, with the quadrivalent vaccine dominating the bivalent vaccine due to the additional QALY effect from reduction in genital warts. The overall outcomes were most sensitive to vaccine cost and coverage.
HPV vaccination is a cost-effective strategy, and should be considered a possible strategy to reduce the impact of HPV infection.
BMC Public Health 03/2011; 11(1):203. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-11-203 · 2.26 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.