BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of adding a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to the Australian National Cervical Screening Program compared to screening alone was examined. METHODS: A Markov model of the natural history of HPV infection that incorporates screening and vaccination was developed. A vaccine that prevents 100% of HPV 16/18-associated disease, with a lifetime duration of efficacy and 80% coverage offered through a school program to girls aged 12 years, in conjunction with current screening was compared with screening alone using cost (in Australian dollars) per life-year (LY) saved and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Sensitivity analyses included determining the cost-effectiveness of offering a catch-up vaccination program to 14-26-year-olds and accounting for the benefits of herd immunity. RESULTS: Vaccination with screening compared with screening alone was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $51 103 per LY and $18 735 per QALY, assuming a cost per vaccine dose of $115. Results were sensitive to assumptions about the duration of vaccine efficacy, including the need for a booster ($68 158 per LY and $24 988 per QALY) to produce lifetime immunity. Accounting for herd immunity resulted in a more attractive ICER ($36 343 per LY and $13 316 per QALY) for girls only. The cost per LY of vaccinating boys and girls was $92 052 and the cost per QALY was $33 644. The cost per LY of implementing a catch-up vaccination program ranged from $45 652 ($16 727 per QALY) for extending vaccination to 14-year-olds to $78 702 ($34 536 per QALY) for 26-year-olds. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that adding an HPV vaccine to Australia's current screening regimen is a potentially cost-effective way to reduce cervical cancer and the clinical interventions that are currently associated with its prevention via screening alone.
BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of adding a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to the Australian National Cervical Screening Program compared to screening alone was examined. METHODS: A Markov model of the natural history of HPV infection that incorporates screening and vaccination was developed. A vaccine that prevents 100% of HPV 16/18-associated disease, with a lifetime duration of efficacy and 80% coverage offered through a school program to girls aged 12 years, in conjunction with current screening was compared with screening alone using cost (in Australian dollars) per life-year (LY) saved and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Sensitivity analyses included determining the cost-effectiveness of offering a catch-up vaccination program to 14-26-year-olds and accounting for the benefits of herd immunity. RESULTS: Vaccination with screening compared with screening alone was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $51 103 per LY and $18 735 per QALY, assuming a cost per vaccine dose of $115. Results were sensitive to assumptions about the duration of vaccine efficacy, including the need for a booster ($68 158 per LY and $24 988 per QALY) to produce lifetime immunity. Accounting for herd immunity resulted in a more attractive ICER ($36 343 per LY and $13 316 per QALY) for girls only. The cost per LY of vaccinating boys and girls was $92 052 and the cost per QALY was $33 644. The cost per LY of implementing a catch-up vaccination program ranged from $45 652 ($16 727 per QALY) for extending vaccination to 14-year-olds to $78 702 ($34 536 per QALY) for 26-year-olds. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that adding an HPV vaccine to Australia's current screening regimen is a potentially cost-effective way to reduce cervical cancer and the clinical interventions that are currently associated with its prevention via screening alone.
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Ann N Burchell; Pierre-Paul Tellier; James Hanley; François Coutlée; Eduardo L Franco Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Andrea M Anonychuk; Chris T Bauch; Maraki Fikre Merid; Georges Van Kriekinge; Nadia Demarteau Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-10-31 Impact factor: 3.295