Marc Brisson1, Jean-François Laprise2, Harrell W Chesson2, Mélanie Drolet2, Talía Malagón2, Marie-Claude Boily2, Lauri E Markowitz2. 1. Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Axe Santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé, Québec, Canada (MB, JFL, MD, TM); Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Université Laval, Québec, Canada (MB, MD, TM); Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK (MB, MCB); National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA (HWC, LEM). marc.brisson@crchudequebec.ulaval.ca. 2. Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Axe Santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé, Québec, Canada (MB, JFL, MD, TM); Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Université Laval, Québec, Canada (MB, MD, TM); Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, UK (MB, MCB); National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA (HWC, LEM).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have shown the 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to be highly effective against types 31/33/45/52/58 compared with the 4-valent. Evidence on the added health and economic benefit of the 9-valent is required for policy decisions. We compare population-level effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 9- and 4-valent HPV vaccination in the United States. METHODS: We used a multitype individual-based transmission-dynamic model of HPV infection and disease (anogenital warts and cervical, anogenital, and oropharyngeal cancers), 3% discount rate, and societal perspective. The model was calibrated to sexual behavior and epidemiologic data from the United States. In our base-case, we assumed 95% vaccine-type efficacy, lifelong protection, and a cost/dose of $145 and $158 for the 4- and 9-valent vaccine, respectively. Predictions are presented using the mean (80% uncertainty interval [UI] = 10(th)-90(th) percentiles) of simulations. RESULTS: Under base-case assumptions, the 4-valent gender-neutral vaccination program is estimated to cost $5500 (80% UI = 2400-9400) and $7300 (80% UI = 4300-11 000)/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with and without cross-protection, respectively. Switching to a 9-valent gender-neutral program is estimated to be cost-saving irrespective of cross-protection assumptions. Finally, the incremental cost/QALY gained of switching to a 9-valent gender-neutral program (vs 9-valent girls/4-valent boys) is estimated to be $140 200 (80% UI = 4200->1 million) and $31 100 (80% UI = 2100->1 million) with and without cross-protection, respectively. Results are robust to assumptions about HPV natural history, screening methods, duration of protection, and healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to a 9-valent gender-neutral HPV vaccination program is likely to be cost-saving if the additional cost/dose of the 9-valent is less than $13. Giving females the 9-valent vaccine provides the majority of benefits of a gender-neutral strategy.
BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have shown the 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to be highly effective against types 31/33/45/52/58 compared with the 4-valent. Evidence on the added health and economic benefit of the 9-valent is required for policy decisions. We compare population-level effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 9- and 4-valent HPV vaccination in the United States. METHODS: We used a multitype individual-based transmission-dynamic model of HPV infection and disease (anogenital warts and cervical, anogenital, and oropharyngeal cancers), 3% discount rate, and societal perspective. The model was calibrated to sexual behavior and epidemiologic data from the United States. In our base-case, we assumed 95% vaccine-type efficacy, lifelong protection, and a cost/dose of $145 and $158 for the 4- and 9-valent vaccine, respectively. Predictions are presented using the mean (80% uncertainty interval [UI] = 10(th)-90(th) percentiles) of simulations. RESULTS: Under base-case assumptions, the 4-valent gender-neutral vaccination program is estimated to cost $5500 (80% UI = 2400-9400) and $7300 (80% UI = 4300-11 000)/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with and without cross-protection, respectively. Switching to a 9-valent gender-neutral program is estimated to be cost-saving irrespective of cross-protection assumptions. Finally, the incremental cost/QALY gained of switching to a 9-valent gender-neutral program (vs 9-valent girls/4-valent boys) is estimated to be $140 200 (80% UI = 4200->1 million) and $31 100 (80% UI = 2100->1 million) with and without cross-protection, respectively. Results are robust to assumptions about HPV natural history, screening methods, duration of protection, and healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to a 9-valent gender-neutral HPV vaccination program is likely to be cost-saving if the additional cost/dose of the 9-valent is less than $13. Giving females the 9-valent vaccine provides the majority of benefits of a gender-neutral strategy.
Authors: Julia M L Brotherton; Mark Jit; Patti E Gravitt; Marc Brisson; Aimée R Kreimer; Sara I Pai; Carole Fakhry; Joseph Monsonego; Silvia Franceschi Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Chelse Spinner; Lili Ding; David I Bernstein; Darron R Brown; Eduardo L Franco; Courtney Covert; Jessica A Kahn Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: David R Lairson; Chi-Fang Wu; Wenyaw Chan; Kristina R Dahlstrom; Samantha Tam; Erich M Sturgis Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: David P Durham; Martial L Ndeffo-Mbah; Laura A Skrip; Forrest K Jones; Chris T Bauch; Alison P Galvani Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 11.205