Katrin Haeussler1, Andrea Marcellusi2, Francesco Saverio Mennini3, Giampiero Favato4, Mauro Picardo5, Giorgia Garganese6, Marco Bononi7, Silvano Costa8, Giovanni Scambia6, Peter Zweifel9, Alessandro Capone4, Gianluca Baio10. 1. Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: k.haeussler@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Economic Evaluation and HTA, Faculty of Economics, University of Rome "Tor Vergata," Rome, Italy; Department of Demography, University of Rome "La Sapienza," Rome, Italy. 3. Economic Evaluation and HTA, Faculty of Economics, University of Rome "Tor Vergata," Rome, Italy; Institute of Leadership and Management in Health, Kingston University London, London, UK. 4. Institute of Leadership and Management in Health, Kingston University London, London, UK. 5. Laboratory of Cutaneous Pathophysiology, San Gallicano Dermatological Institute (IRCCS), Rome, Italy. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. 7. Department of Surgery Pietro Valdoni, University of Rome "La Sapienza," Rome, Italy. 8. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 9. Socioeconomic Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 10. Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) plays a role in the development of benign and malign neoplasms in both sexes. The Italian recommendations for HPV vaccines consider only females. The BEST II study (Bayesian modelling to assess the Effectiveness of a vaccination Strategy to prevent HPV-related diseases) evaluates 1) the cost-effectiveness of immunization strategies targeting universal vaccination compared with cervical cancer screening and female-only vaccination and 2) the economic impact of immunization on various HPV-induced diseases. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether female-only vaccination or universal vaccination is the most cost-effective intervention against HPV. METHODS: We present a dynamic Bayesian Markov model to investigate transmission dynamics in cohorts of females and males in a follow-up period of 55 years. We assumed that quadrivalent vaccination (against HPV 16, 18, 6, and 11) is available for 12-year-old individuals. The model accounts for the progression of subjects across HPV-induced health states (cervical, vaginal, vulvar, anal, penile, and head/neck cancer as well as anogenital warts). The sexual mixing is modeled on the basis of age-, sex-, and sexual behavioral-specific matrices to obtain the dynamic force of infection. RESULTS: In comparison to cervical cancer screening, universal vaccination results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €1,500. When universal immunization is compared with female-only vaccination, it is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €11,600. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows a relatively large amount of parameter uncertainty, which interestingly has, however, no substantial impact on the decision-making process. The intervention being assessed seems to be associated with an attractive cost-effectiveness profile. CONCLUSIONS: Universal HPV vaccination is found to be a cost-effective choice when compared with either cervical cancer screening or female-only vaccination within the Italian context.
BACKGROUND:Human papillomavirus (HPV) plays a role in the development of benign and malign neoplasms in both sexes. The Italian recommendations for HPV vaccines consider only females. The BEST II study (Bayesian modelling to assess the Effectiveness of a vaccination Strategy to prevent HPV-related diseases) evaluates 1) the cost-effectiveness of immunization strategies targeting universal vaccination compared with cervical cancer screening and female-only vaccination and 2) the economic impact of immunization on various HPV-induced diseases. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether female-only vaccination or universal vaccination is the most cost-effective intervention against HPV. METHODS: We present a dynamic Bayesian Markov model to investigate transmission dynamics in cohorts of females and males in a follow-up period of 55 years. We assumed that quadrivalent vaccination (against HPV 16, 18, 6, and 11) is available for 12-year-old individuals. The model accounts for the progression of subjects across HPV-induced health states (cervical, vaginal, vulvar, anal, penile, and head/neck cancer as well as anogenital warts). The sexual mixing is modeled on the basis of age-, sex-, and sexual behavioral-specific matrices to obtain the dynamic force of infection. RESULTS: In comparison to cervical cancer screening, universal vaccination results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €1,500. When universal immunization is compared with female-only vaccination, it is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €11,600. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows a relatively large amount of parameter uncertainty, which interestingly has, however, no substantial impact on the decision-making process. The intervention being assessed seems to be associated with an attractive cost-effectiveness profile. CONCLUSIONS: Universal HPV vaccination is found to be a cost-effective choice when compared with either cervical cancer screening or female-only vaccination within the Italian context.
Authors: Hector Posso; Leith León-Maldonado; Betania Allen-Leigh; Jorge Salmerón; Manuel Quiterio; Anna R Giuliano; Staci L Sudenga; Alan G Nyitray; B Nelson Torres; Martha Abrahamsen; Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce Journal: Salud Publica Mex Date: 2018 Nov-Dec