Triin Võrno1, Katrin Lutsar2, Anneli Uusküla2, Lee Padrik3, Terje Raud3, Rainer Reile2, Oliver Nahkur4, Raul-Allan Kiivet2. 1. Institute of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia. Electronic address: triin.vorno@ut.ee. 2. Institute of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia. 3. Tartu University Hospital, Women's Clinic, Tartu, Estonia. 4. Institute of Social Studies, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Estonia has high cervical cancer incidence and low screening coverage. We modelled the impact of population-based bivalent, quadrivalent or nonavalent HPV vaccination alongside cervical cancer screening. METHODS: A Markov cohort model of the natural history of HPV infection was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating a cohort of 12-year-old girls with bivalent, quadrivalent or nonavalent vaccine in two doses in a national, school-based vaccination programme. The model followed the natural progression of HPV infection into subsequent genital warts (GW); premalignant lesions (CIN1-3); cervical, oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal and anal cancer. Vaccine coverage was assumed to be 70%. A time horizon of 88years (up to 100years of age) was used to capture all lifetime vaccination costs and benefits. Costs and utilities were discounted using an annual discount rate of 5%. RESULTS: Vaccination of 12-year-old girls alongside screening compared to screening alone had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €14,007 (bivalent), €14,067 (quadrivalent) and €11,633 (nonavalent) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the base-case scenario and ranged between €5367-21,711, €5142-21,800 and €4563-18,142, respectively, in sensitivity analysis. The results were most sensitive to changes in discount rate, vaccination regimen, vaccine prices and cervical cancer screening coverage. CONCLUSION: Vaccination of 12-year-old girls alongside current cervical cancer screening can be considered a cost-effective intervention in Estonia. Adding HPV vaccination to the national immunisation schedule is expected to prevent a considerable number of HPV infections, genital warts, premalignant lesions, HPV related cancers and deaths. Although in our model ICERs varied slightly depending on the vaccine used, they generally fell within the same range. Cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination was found to be most dependent on vaccine cost and duration of vaccine immunity, but not on the type of vaccine used.
BACKGROUND:Estonia has high cervical cancer incidence and low screening coverage. We modelled the impact of population-based bivalent, quadrivalent or nonavalent HPV vaccination alongside cervical cancer screening. METHODS: A Markov cohort model of the natural history of HPV infection was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating a cohort of 12-year-old girls with bivalent, quadrivalent or nonavalent vaccine in two doses in a national, school-based vaccination programme. The model followed the natural progression of HPV infection into subsequent genital warts (GW); premalignant lesions (CIN1-3); cervical, oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal and anal cancer. Vaccine coverage was assumed to be 70%. A time horizon of 88years (up to 100years of age) was used to capture all lifetime vaccination costs and benefits. Costs and utilities were discounted using an annual discount rate of 5%. RESULTS: Vaccination of 12-year-old girls alongside screening compared to screening alone had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €14,007 (bivalent), €14,067 (quadrivalent) and €11,633 (nonavalent) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the base-case scenario and ranged between €5367-21,711, €5142-21,800 and €4563-18,142, respectively, in sensitivity analysis. The results were most sensitive to changes in discount rate, vaccination regimen, vaccine prices and cervical cancer screening coverage. CONCLUSION: Vaccination of 12-year-old girls alongside current cervical cancer screening can be considered a cost-effective intervention in Estonia. Adding HPV vaccination to the national immunisation schedule is expected to prevent a considerable number of HPV infections, genital warts, premalignant lesions, HPV related cancers and deaths. Although in our model ICERs varied slightly depending on the vaccine used, they generally fell within the same range. Cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination was found to be most dependent on vaccine cost and duration of vaccine immunity, but not on the type of vaccine used.