OBJECTIVE: To estimate the benefits, cost-effectiveness (i.e., value for money), and required financial costs (e.g., affordability) of adding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to Peru's cervical cancer screening program. METHODS: Evidence (e.g., coverage, delivery costs) from an HPV vaccination demonstration project conducted in Peru was combined with epidemiological data in an empirically calibrated mathematical model to assess screening (HPV DNA testing three to five times per lifetime) and HPV vaccination under different cost, coverage, and efficacy assumptions. Model outcomes included lifetime risk of cancer reduction, cancer cases averted, lives saved, average life expectancy gains, short-term financial costs, and discounted long-term economic costs. RESULTS: Status quo low levels of screening (e.g., cytologic screening at 10.0% coverage) reduced lifetime risk of cervical cancer by 11.9%, compared to not screening. Adding vaccination of preadolescent girls at a coverage achieved in the demonstration program (82.0%) produced an additional 46.1% reduction, and would cost less than US$ 500 per year of life saved (YLS) at ~US$ 7/dose or ~US$ 1 300 at ~US$ 20/dose. One year of vaccination was estimated to cost ~US$ 5 million at ~US$ 5/dose or ~US$ 16 million at ~US$ 20/dose, including programmatic costs. Enhanced screening in adult women combined with preadolescent vaccination had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios lower than Peru's 2005 per capita gross domestic product (GDP; US$ 2 852, in 2009 US$), and would be considered cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Preadolescent HPV vaccination, followed by enhanced HPV DNA screening in adult women, could prevent two out of three cervical cancer deaths. Several strategies would be considered "good value" for resources invested, provided vaccine prices are low. While financial costs imply substantial immediate investments, the high-value payoff should motivate creative mechanisms for financing and scale-up of delivery programs.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the benefits, cost-effectiveness (i.e., value for money), and required financial costs (e.g., affordability) of adding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to Peru's cervical cancer screening program. METHODS: Evidence (e.g., coverage, delivery costs) from an HPV vaccination demonstration project conducted in Peru was combined with epidemiological data in an empirically calibrated mathematical model to assess screening (HPV DNA testing three to five times per lifetime) and HPV vaccination under different cost, coverage, and efficacy assumptions. Model outcomes included lifetime risk of cancer reduction, cancer cases averted, lives saved, average life expectancy gains, short-term financial costs, and discounted long-term economic costs. RESULTS: Status quo low levels of screening (e.g., cytologic screening at 10.0% coverage) reduced lifetime risk of cervical cancer by 11.9%, compared to not screening. Adding vaccination of preadolescent girls at a coverage achieved in the demonstration program (82.0%) produced an additional 46.1% reduction, and would cost less than US$ 500 per year of life saved (YLS) at ~US$ 7/dose or ~US$ 1 300 at ~US$ 20/dose. One year of vaccination was estimated to cost ~US$ 5 million at ~US$ 5/dose or ~US$ 16 million at ~US$ 20/dose, including programmatic costs. Enhanced screening in adult women combined with preadolescent vaccination had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios lower than Peru's 2005 per capita gross domestic product (GDP; US$ 2 852, in 2009 US$), and would be considered cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Preadolescent HPV vaccination, followed by enhanced HPV DNA screening in adult women, could prevent two out of three cervical cancer deaths. Several strategies would be considered "good value" for resources invested, provided vaccine prices are low. While financial costs imply substantial immediate investments, the high-value payoff should motivate creative mechanisms for financing and scale-up of delivery programs.
Authors: Obinna I Ekwunife; James F O'Mahony; Andreas Gerber Grote; Christoph Mosch; Tatjana Paeck; Stefan K Lhachimi Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Jessica H Zafra-Tanaka; Janeth Tenorio-Mucha; David Villarreal-Zegarra; Rodrigo Carrillo-Larco; Antonio Bernabe-Ortiz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Karen Canfell; Jane J Kim; Shalini Kulasingam; Johannes Berkhof; Ruanne Barnabas; Johannes A Bogaards; Nicole Campos; Chloe Jennett; Monisha Sharma; Kate T Simms; Megan A Smith; Louiza S Velentzis; Marc Brisson; Mark Jit Journal: Papillomavirus Res Date: 2019-09-07