Luke B Connelly1, Ha N D Le2. 1. The University of Queensland, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Level 7, Oral Health Building, Herston, Qld 4006, Australia. 2. Deakin Health Economics, Population Health SRC, Deakin University, Level 3, Building BC, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Vic. 3125, Australia.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines and their widespread adoption have the potential to relieve a large part of the burden of cervical cancer morbidity and mortality, particularly in countries that have low screening rates or, like Japan, lack a cohesive universal screening program. An economic evaluation was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of introducing a bivalent HPV vaccination program in Japan from a healthcare perspective. METHODS: A Markov model of the natural history of HPV infection that incorporates both vaccination and screening was developed for Japan. The modelled intervention, a bivalent HPV vaccine with a 100% lifetime vaccine efficacy and 80% vaccine coverage, given to a cohort of 12-year-old Japanese girls in conjunction with the current screening program, was compared with screening alone in terms of costs and effectiveness. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and utilities where relevant. RESULTS: Vaccination alongside screening compared with screening alone is associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$20315 per quality-adjusted-life-year gained if 80% coverage is assumed. The ICER at 5% coverage with the vaccine plus screening, compared with screening alone, is US$1158. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness results suggest that the addition of a HPV vaccination program to Japan's cervical cancer screening program is highly likely to prove a cost-effective way to reduce the burden of cervical cancer, precancerous lesions and HPV16/18-related diseases.
UNLABELLED: Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines and their widespread adoption have the potential to relieve a large part of the burden of cervical cancer morbidity and mortality, particularly in countries that have low screening rates or, like Japan, lack a cohesive universal screening program. An economic evaluation was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of introducing a bivalent HPV vaccination program in Japan from a healthcare perspective. METHODS: A Markov model of the natural history of HPV infection that incorporates both vaccination and screening was developed for Japan. The modelled intervention, a bivalent HPV vaccine with a 100% lifetime vaccine efficacy and 80% vaccine coverage, given to a cohort of 12-year-old Japanese girls in conjunction with the current screening program, was compared with screening alone in terms of costs and effectiveness. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and utilities where relevant. RESULTS: Vaccination alongside screening compared with screening alone is associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$20315 per quality-adjusted-life-year gained if 80% coverage is assumed. The ICER at 5% coverage with the vaccine plus screening, compared with screening alone, is US$1158. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness results suggest that the addition of a HPV vaccination program to Japan's cervical cancer screening program is highly likely to prove a cost-effective way to reduce the burden of cervical cancer, precancerous lesions and HPV16/18-related diseases.