The cost-effectiveness of controlling cervical cancer using a new 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine among school-aged girls in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical cancer imposes a substantial health burden worldwide including in Australia and is caused by persistent infection with one of 13 sexually transmitted high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding a nonavalent new Gardasil-9® (9vHPV) vaccine to the national immunisation schedule in Australia across three different delivery strategies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Papillomavirus Rapid Interface for Modelling and Economics (PRIME) model was used to examine the cost-effectiveness of 9vHPV vaccine introduction to prevent HPV infection. Academic literature and anecdotal evidence were included on the demographic variables, cervical cancer incidence and mortality, treatment costs, and vaccine delivery costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured per disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, using the heuristic cost-effectiveness threshold defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Analyses and data from international agencies were used in scenario analysis from the health system and societal perspectives.
RESULTS: The 9vHPV vaccination was estimated to prevent 113 new cases of cervical cancer (discounted) during a 20-year period. From the health system and societal perspectives, the 9vHPV vaccination was very cost-effective in comparison with the status quo, with an ICER of A$47,008 and A$44,678 per DALY averted, respectively, using the heuristic cost-effectiveness threshold level. Considering delivery strategies, the ICERs per DALY averted were A$47,605, A$46,682, and A$46,738 for school, health facilities, and outreach-based vaccination programs from the health system perspective, wherein, from the societal perspective, the ICERs per DALY averted were A$46,378, A$43,729, A$43,930, respectively. All estimates of ICERs fell below the threshold level (A$73,267).
CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness evaluation suggests that the routine two-dose 9vHPV vaccination strategy of preadolescent girls against HPV is very cost-effective in Australia from both the health system and societal perspectives. If equally priced, the 9vHPV option is the most economically viable vaccine. Overall, this analysis seeks to contribute to an evidence-based recommendation about the new 9vHPV vaccination in the national immunisation program in Australia.

Introduction

Cervical cancer is both a leading cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths in women globally [1]. An estimated 570,000 new cases of cervical cancer were diagnosed in 2018, composing 6.6% of all cancers in women [1]. In Australia, over the last couple of years, the age-specific cervical cancer incidence has slightly reduced to 7.1 cases per 100,000 females in 2018 from 7.4 cases per 100,000 females in 2014 [2]. However, the incidence is quite high among young adult females at 15.0 cases per 100,000 females and was the most frequently diagnosed cancer among women in 2018 [2]. Persistent infections with human papillomavirus (HPV) are a key cause of cervical cancer and an established carcinogen of cervical cancer [3]. HPV is predominantly transmitted to reproductive-aged women through sexual contact [4]. Most HPV infections are transient and can be cleared up within a short duration, usually a few months after their acquisition. However, HPV infections can continue and evolve in cancer in some cases. There are more than 100 types of HPV infections that have been identified and divided into low- and high-risk types develop into cervical cancer [5]. Thirteen high-risk HPV types are known to be predominantly responsible for malignant and premalignant lesions of the anogenital area [6] and are the leading causes of most aggressive cervical cancers [7]. Further, HPV is also responsible for the majority of anogenital cervical cancers such as anal cancers (88%), vulvar cancers (43%), invasive vaginal carcinomas (70%), and all penile cancers (50%) globally [5]. The incidence of neck and head cancers caused by HPV infection is low but not negligible [8]. Cervical cancer is preventable through implementation of a primary prevention strategy such as vaccination worldwide including Australia [9,10]. Therefore, a reduction in cervical cancer incidence and associated cancer mortality along with the improvement of survival rates have the potential to reduce the burden of cervical cancer.

The high burden of cervical cancer in terms of incidence and associated mortality rates across the world could be reduced by incorporating a comprehensive primary prevention mechanism. Prevention mechanisms includes early vaccination, diagnosis, effective screening, adequate referral and advanced course of treatment procedures. In this context, HPV vaccinations (i.e., bivalent and quadrivalent) has been introduced in many countries in the past decade [10]. Currently, available HPV vaccines can promote herd immunity against cancer-causing types of HPV that helps to reduce the high-risk of cervical cancer burden. These vaccines have played a significant role in preventing HPV infection types 16 and 18 [10], which cause more than 70% of cervical cancers in Australia [7].

Australia was the first country to implement a publicly-funded National HPV Immunisation Program (NHIP), starting with preadolescent girls in 2007, using the quadrivalent Gardasil® vaccine (4vHPV; Merck & Co., Kenilworth, NJ, USA) [11]. The goals of the immunisation program were to reduce the acquisition and spread of HPV infections and to achieve optimum coverage through the school-based delivery system [12]. This program for adolescent employed a three-dose schedule of the 4vHPV vaccine [13]. The 4vHPV vaccine provides protection against HPV infection types 6, 11, 16, and 18 [14]. In the context of Australia, the 4vHPV vaccine was replaced by the two-dose nonavalent Gardasil®-9 vaccine (9vHPV; Merck Sharp & Dohme) in 2018 [15]. According to the underlying distribution of HPV infection types of cervical cancers, the 9vHPV vaccine builds population-level strong immunity against HPV-6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 infections [6] that cumulatively contribute to approximately 89% of all cervical cancers globally [16] and 93% in Australia [17]. Considering the primary prevention of HPV infection, the 9vHPV vaccine is anticipated to reduce by 10% more the lifetime risk of diagnosis of cervical cancer in immunised cohorts than the 4vHPV vaccine and by 52% more compared to non-vaccinated cohorts [18].

With the availability of vaccines against the different HPV infection types, there are good opportunities for primary prevention to add to continuing efforts on secondary prevention strategies. However, the decision for any country to add a new vaccine to national immunization programs requires careful assessment of the relative value of the vaccine compared with alternative uses of the required resources (i.e., cost-effectiveness) and its affordability (i.e., budgetary impact). Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a pragmatic approach which aims to examine the outcomes and costs of interventions or programs designed to improve health. CEA evolves measuring the net or incremental costs and effects of an intervention or program in terms of costs and health outcomes as compared with some comparator. There is considerable evidence of assessing the cost-effectiveness of the 9vHPV vaccine in different country settings. In Canada, the 9vHPV was found to be highly cost-effective compared with the 4vHPV vaccine taking into consideration the shorter duration of protection (9vHPV = 20 years vs. 4vHPV = lifelong), along with a lower vaccine efficacy (85% vs. 95%) [19]. In other studies conducted in the United States (US), the 9vHPV vaccine was also found to be very cost-effective compared to the 4vHPV vaccine [20]. However, findings from cost-effective evaluations will differ based on study settings, funding, perspectives and coverage of vaccination For example, in the US, Chesson et al. (2016) found that the 9vHPV vaccine was not cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $146,200 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained that exceeded the cost-effectiveness threshold ($100,000) [21]. Some cost-effective evaluations were performed using the same vaccine (i.e., 9-valent) in the US to capture the different dimensions of its economic viability [22-27]. These studies incorporated different study participants, designs, perspectives, vaccine delivery routes and model specifications. Simms et al. (2016) evaluated the 9vHPV vaccine in a primary HPV screening scenario in both Australia and Canada [18]. They found that 9vHPV had a significant impact on reducing cervical cancer incidence from the health system perspective. Further, they claimed that the incremental cost per dose in girls should not exceed a median of A$35.99. However, this study emphasised the impact of vaccines to prevent cervical cancer rather than their economic viability. Sufficient evidence did not arise for health policymakers to use the findings to develop cost-effective intervention strategies. In Germany, universal immunisation with 9vHPV was suggested as it had an ICER of €22,987/QALY gained, which was below the threshold [28]. In Spain, a recent study evaluated a vaccine program in adolescent girls, wherein the 9vHPV vaccine was found to be more highly cost-effective, with an ICER of €7,718 per QALY compared to the 4vHPV vaccine [29]. In the African setting, in Kenya and Uganda, a study recommended that the 9vHPV vaccine was very cost-effective in both countries, wherein the additional cost of the 9vHPV vaccine did not exceed I$8.3 per immunised girl [30].

In Australia, the 9vHPV vaccine was introduced in 2018. There is limited current comprehensive evidence about the cost-effectiveness of the 9vHPV vaccine in Australia across delivery strategies (e.g., school-based, health facility-based and outreach-based) from the health system and societal perspectives. The present study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the 9vHPV vaccine from both health system and societal perspectives across three delivery routes. However, the previous cost-effective evaluation considered only one perspective nor health system or societal, or both perspectives along with single vaccine delivery route. Further, the findings of the present study will provide evidence about the cost-effectiveness of the 9vHPV vaccine to policymakers. These cost-effectiveness findings will also be significant for determining the optimal pricing of delivery strategies in the vaccination program in order to maximise the societal benefits of the introduction of the new 9vHPV vaccine to Australia.

The objectives of this study are (1) to examine the cost-effectiveness of the 9vHPV vaccine by considering three different vaccine delivery strategies in the setting of Australia from the health system and societal perspectives and (2) compare the ICER per case, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and life-years saved across delivery strategies such as school-based, health facility-based, and outreach-based programs.

Materials and methods

Study perspective

This study was designed from both the health system and societal perspectives. The societal perspective refers to all types of costs that can be identified, quantified, estimated, and valued no matter who incurred them and it is considered to be the summation of both provider and household costs. This is the recommended standard for undertaking cost-effectiveness analysis [31].

Model overview

The study used the Papillomavirus Rapid Interface for Modelling and Economics (PRIME) model. PRIME is a user-friendly model designed and developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in collaboration with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in London, and the Universite Laval in Quebec [10]. PRIME is a Microsoft Excel based (Microsoft Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) static model that measures the health and economic effects of the vaccination of adolescent girls against HPV infection. It is not designed to examine other dimensions, such as immunised males or older women or the impact of cervical cancer screening services [10]. Several spreadsheets are contained in this model to input different parameter-level data on demographics, an age-dependent incidence of cervical cancer, associated mortality, vaccine efficacy, vaccine coverage, and associated costs (e.g., vaccination costs, treatment costs). This model does not consider indirect effects like herd immunity.

Methodological assumptions

Methodological assumptions follow the WHO guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis [32]. The use of cost-effectiveness analysis is recommended when considering health system and societal perspectives. In the context of the health system perspective, the average cost parameters associated with treating a woman with cervical cancer (per episode, over the lifetime), and the cost of the HPV vaccination program were both considered. From the societal viewpoint, both direct medical (e.g., drugs, diagnostics) and non-medical (e.g., transportation) costs as well as indirect costs (e.g., productivity loses or income loss due to cervical cancer) were considered in the analysis. All future costs and health benefits were adjusted by a discount rate of 5% annually [5,29,32], which was validated in the sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome measure is the ICERs per DALYs averted. DALY estimation was undertaken by summing up the fatal burden (years of life lost; YLL) due to premature cervical cancer related mortality and the non-fatal burden (years lost due to disability; YLD) for patients surviving the condition. where, N = number of deaths; L (YLL) = standard life expectancy at the age of death in that year; I = number of people with cervical cancer cases; DW = disability weight; r = discount rate; and L (YLD) = duration of disability in years.

Cost-effectiveness analysis

The performance of competing strategies was explained using the ICER which were calculated by dividing the difference in cost with and without HPV vaccination by the difference in health outcomes (e.g., the number of DALYs averted, the number of deaths and cases averted) with and without vaccination in Australia. The ICER is used to examine whether the 9vHPV vaccine is economically viable in Australia. In the context of Australia, no explicit cost-effectiveness threshold has been approved [33,34], although research has confirmed that there is a correlation between the incremental cost per health outcomes (e.g., QALY gained or DALY averted) and the probability of rejection of a health intervention or a new medicine [35]. The pharmaceutical industry claim that an acceptable threshold was in the range of AUD 45,000 to AUD 60,000 per additional QALY gained [36]. Some studies also stated that “Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) decisions in the past have shown that the ICER per QALY gained was of the order of $50,000” [18,37]. The present study intended to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 9vHPV vaccine in terms of the ICER per DALYs averted. Further, DALYs and QALYs differ in concept and application. The concept of DALYs was used to measure the disease burden using life lost due to premature death and the time spent in worse healthy states. Empirical evidence in the Australian context is limited to the use of the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold values for the ICER per DALYs averted. In reporting the cost-effectiveness scenario, the present study used the heuristic cost-effectiveness threshold as defined by the WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH) [38]. The gross domestic product (GDP)-related cost-effectiveness thresholds were based on assumptions about leisure time, non-health consumption, longevity and health-related quality of life. An intervention is cost-effective if the ICER per DALY averted is less than three times of a country’s annual per capita GDP. According to this guideline, the CMH recommended three broad decision rules, as follows: (1) a program or intervention is defined as very cost-effective if the ICER per DALY averted is less than one time the GDP per capita; (2) a program or intervention is cost-effective if the ICER per DALY averted is one or more times the GDP per capita but less than or equal to three times the GDP per capita; and (3) a program or intervention is not cost-effective if the ICER per DALY averted is more than three times the GDP per capita [31].

Vaccine and efficacy

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) in 2018 advised moving from using the quadrivalent 4vHPV to using the nonavalent Gardasil-9 (9vHPV) vaccine [39]. The 9vHPV vaccine has been registered for use in Australia [40]. The vaccine is funded through the national immunisation program (NIP) and delivered primarily by state and territory school-based immunisation programs in Australia [39]. This vaccine is manufactured using a procedure similar to that of the 4vHPV vaccine, which contains 0.5mg of aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate and a yeast expression system [40]. The 4vHPV vaccine contains five more virus-like particles than the original vaccine, identical to those in the protective capsule around the nine included strains (HPV-6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58) with the aim to further reduce the HPV disease burden. The high prophylactic efficacy of the 9vHPV vaccine (93%) against HPV infection is evident both in Australia (77% for HPV types 16, 18 and 16% for HPV types 6, 31, 33, 45, 52, 58) [17] and globally (89%) [16]. However, no herd immunity was considered. It was recommended for the target cohort of adolescents aged 12 years to receive a two-dose 9vHPV vaccination for several reasons [39]. First, administering a vaccination at this age is more likely to ensure it is being given before their first sexual encounter (and HPV exposure). Also, the immune response tends to be stronger and more long-lasting when the vaccine is given to pre-adolescents. However, 9vHPV is not recommended for use during pregnancy. Similarly, vaccination is delayed if the person is unwell or has a high temperature, medical advice is recommended if the person is allergic to yeast or has had a severe reaction to a previous vaccine, and anyone who receives the vaccine is recommended to sit for 15 minutes thereafter to reduce the risk of fainting.

Vaccine delivery strategies

The HPV vaccine delivery strategy is an important aspect that needs to be considered carefully by each country. According to the country-specific context, the costs of vaccine delivery may vary. The WHO has recommended several types of common vaccine delivery strategies for different country settings. One example is vaccine delivery at healthcare facilities and via outreach routes (e.g. school-based program) and campaigns. It may be required to use a combined vaccine delivery strategy to ensure access among the entire target population. The 9vHPV vaccine has been delivered in Australia through school-based NIP in all states and territories to the target population cohort of school-going adolescents since January 2018. Two doses of 9vHPV are recommended to be administered at a minimum interval of six to 12 months between doses [39]. In some cases, general practitioner (GP) and other primary health care providers are generally engaged to catch up doses missed in the routinely school-based NIP. All providers are proactively involved in delivering and ensuring the completion of all doses of the 9vHPV vaccine to those individuals with special requirements, vaccine hesitancy, or immunocompromise. However, individuals who have already been fully immunised with HPV vaccines are not eligible for free 9vHPV vaccination. The present study incorporated another two hypothetical vaccine delivery strategies, as health facility-based and outreach-based, both from the health system and societal perspectives.

Vaccine delivery costs

The present study considered vaccine delivery related costs across three delivery strategies (e.g., school-based, health facility-based and outreach-based). Costs were derived from an existing costing study [41]. This study captured both financial and economic costs according to the WHO guidelines [42], included eight cost parameters, and focused on the investment and recurrent cost impacts of HPV vaccination on existing vaccination services. Furthermore, the investment costs were defined as microplanning (e.g., per diems and travel allowances, venue rental, transport and personnel time spent), training (e.g., training materials, stationery), social mobilisation (e.g., facilitator time in meetings, production of television/radio spots, posters, leaflets, value of teacher and volunteer time), and cold chain supplement. In addition, recurrent costs were covered including vaccines, service delivery, monitoring and evaluation, and waste disposal.

Cervical cancer treatment costs

Direct medical costs

Cervical cancer treatment costs were derived from a previous cost-of-illness study considering four treatment procedures: localised cancer treatment, regional cancer treatment, distant cancer treatment and terminal care [43]. The treatment costs were estimated based on different parameters such as surgical (e.g., conisation, hysterectomy, radical hysterectomy) and non-surgical (e.g., radiation therapy, adjuvant radiation therapy, chemo-radiation) [43]. Different types of activities included in cancer diagnosis were the direct medical costs such as colposcopy, chest X-ray, computerised tomography scan, positron-emission tomography scan, magnetic resonance imaging, bone scan and cystoscopy. Other costs included those related to inpatient care, emergency care, medicine costs, rehab, complex continuing care, long-term care, home care services, physician consultations, and non-physician provider costs.

Indirect costs

Indirect costs of cervical cancer patients and vaccine receivers were restricted to the loss of labour productivity due to ill health. Absenteeism-related data were obtained for a cervical cancer episode from elsewhere [32]. Other indirect costs were estimated using the human capital approach (S1 Table). The production losses were measured in both monetary and quantitative terms (e.g., days of productivity loss) [44]. The value of unpaid time devoted to own care and family defined caregivers [45]. The value of daily productivity was measured based on an age-specific average wage [46]. The average daily wage of cervical cancer patients were used for adult patients, and one-half of that wage was applied to teenager patients. Intangible costs related to pain, discomfort and grief were excluded [46]. All costs were converted into 2018 Australian dollars using the Consumer Price Index of Health Care [47].

Dynamic modelling of HPV transmission and the impact of vaccination

A dynamic cancer disease model was introduced to cover HPV transmission, HPV vaccination and cervical pre-cancer (Fig 1). The model incorporates demographics, economics, HPV attributable fractions in cervical cancer and vaccine uptake assumptions, as detailed in Table 1. When modelling the impact of HPV vaccination, the model captured the effects of herd protection (i.e., naturally acquired immunity) on the unvaccinated cohort. It was assumed that 9vHPV vaccine type-specific (HPV types) efficacy in girls was 100% and that the duration of protection was 20 years [19,27].

Fig 1

Simplified diagram of the model of HPV transmission, human impact of vaccination and disease outcomes in Australia.

Table 1

Input parameter assumptions and sensitivity analysis.

Input parameters	Health system perspective				Societal perspective				Sensitivity analysis and potential sources
	Overall	School-based	Health facilities-based	Outreach-based	Overall	School-based	Health facilities-based	Outreach-based
Population
Population cohort at birth (female) (‘000)	191.34	191.34	191.34	191.34	191.34	191.34	191.34	191.34	[50]
Population cohort at vaccination age (female) (‘000)	118.68	118.68	118.68	118.68	118.68	118.68	118.68	118.68	[40,51]
Target age group (yrs)	12	12	12	12	12	12	12	12	[39]
Vaccination and vaccine delivery costs
Vaccination coverage (full doses)	86%	86%	86%	86%	86%	86%	86%	86%	72.00% -90.1% [51–55]
Vaccine effectiveness vs HPV types1	95%	95%	95%	95%	95%	95%	95%	95%	85% -100% [25,52,53,56]
Price of vaccine per fully immunised girl (FIG) (A$)	280	280	280	280	280	280	280	280	270–320 [32,41,57]
Direct costs of vaccine delivery per FIG (A$)	31.77	35.27	29.86	30.19	31.77	35.27	29.86	30.19	[5,32,41]
Indirect costs of vaccine delivery per FIG (A$)	-	-	-	-	17.59	24.05	13.93	14.79
Total cost of vaccine delivery cost per FIG (A$)	31.77	35.27	29.86	30.19	49.36	59.32	43.80	44.98
Total costs of vaccination per FIG (A$)	311.77	315.27	309.86	310.19	329.36	339.32	323.80	324.98	300–500 [5,32,41]
Treatment cost per episode
Direct costs A$ (‘000)	32.95	32.95	32.95	32.95	32.95	32.95	32.95	32.95	[32,43]
Indirect costs (including caregiver costs) A$ (‘000)	-	-	-	-	28.32	28.32	28.32	28.32	[32,43]
Total treatment costs A$ (‘000)	32.95	32.95	32.95	32.95	61.27	61.27	61.27	61.27	36.05–71.05 [32,43]
Methodological assumptions
Disability weight for cancer diagnosis	0.09	0.09	0.09	0.09	0.07	0.09	0.09	0.09	0.061–0.095 [10,32,58,59]
Disability weight for non-terminal (per year)	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.065–0.091 [10,32]
Disability weight for terminal cancer	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.70–0.90 (assumption)
Vaccine protection (years)	20 yrs	20 yrs	20 yrs	20 yrs	20 yrs	20 yrs	20 yrs	20 yrs	20 years [19]
Discount rate	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%	3.0% -5.0% [23,24,30,32,58,60]
Proportion of cervical cancer cases that aredue to 1HPV-types	90.3%	90.3%	90.3%	90.3%	90.3%	90.3%	90.3%	90.3%	70% -95.0% [9,15,17,39]
Economic growth
GDP per capita, A$	73,267	73,267	73,267	73,267	73,267	73,267	73,267	73,267	73,267 [61]

1HPV-6, 11, 16,18,31,33,45,52,58

Sensitivity analysis

A deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the robustness of the results. The output estimates varied for each value of the input parameters. These prices were derived from the academic and anecdotal literature and aimed to determine the impact of uncertainty in input assumptions on the ICERs.

Results

Model input parameters

Table 1 shows several input parameters, including the population cohort at birth, coverage of full dose vaccine, vaccine effectiveness versus HPV-9 types, the price of vaccine, and vaccine delivery costs per fully immunised girl. Cervical cancer treatment related costs per episode included direct costs (e.g., medical and non-medical costs) and indirect costs (e.g., loss of labour productivity for patients and caregivers during treatment). DALYs incurred for nonfatal and fatal cervical cancer episodes, and epidemiological data related to cervical cancer incidence were used. The sizes of the female birth cohort and the cohort at immunisation age were 191,340 and 118,679, respectively. Vaccination coverage was 86%, whereas vaccine effectiveness against HPV infections was 95%. The price of the vaccine and direct and indirect vaccine delivery costs were A$280, A$31.77, and A$17.59, respectively. Cervical cancer treatment costs were A$61,272, wherein 53.78% (A$32,952) were direct costs and 46.22% (A$28,322) indirect costs. These varied depending on the types of treatment and stages of cancer. Cervical cancer incidence and mortality-related data were extracted from national sources and the GLOBOCAN-2018 study [48]. Methodological assumptions such as disability weights (for cancer diagnosis, non-terminal and terminal) are shown in Table 1. Vaccine protection was considered to be 20 years as suggested by an expert panel and earlier research [49].

Cost-effectiveness estimates

The model estimates in Table 2 show the cost-effectiveness of the 9vHPV vaccination in Australia under various assumptions about the cost of cervical cancer treatment and the cost of vaccination across delivery strategies. The 9vHPV vaccination in Australia would cost the public approximately A$28.11 million for this target population cohort, although several types of treatment procedures would be transferred from the health system perspective and the value of A$26.72 million from a societal perspective across the various vaccine delivery strategies (e.g., school-based, health facility-based, outreach-based) would result. State and territory school-based immunisation programs primarily implement the 9vHPV vaccination through the NIP in Australia. Another two possible delivery strategies (e.g., health facility-based and outreach-based) were also included for comparison. Overall, the ICER per DALY averted was A$47,008 from a health system perspective and A$44,678 from a societal perspective, respectively. Considering delivery strategies, the ICERs per DALY averted were A$47,605, $46,682 and $46,738 for school-based, health facility-based and outreach-based programs, respectively, from the health system perspective. Whereas, from the societal perspective, the values were A$46,378, A$43,729, and A$43,930 respectively. Both perspectives for ICERs per DALY averted fell below the 2018 fiscal year GDP per capita in Australia (A$73,267), which is used as a threshold for examining the cost-effectiveness of an intervention. Similarly, consistent results were presented for the ICERs per life-year saved for both perspectives across delivery strategies (Table 2). This evaluation signifies the cost-effectiveness of the 9vHPV vaccination from both perspectives in Australia.

Table 2

Outcomes of the vaccination program*.

Scenario	Scenario– 1				Scenario—2
Perspective	Health system perspective				Societal perspective
Vaccine delivery strategies	Overall	School-based	Health facilities-based	Outreach-based	Overall	School-based	Healthfacilities-based	Outreach-based
Output parameters
Cohort size at birth (female), (‘000)	191.34	191.34	191.34	191.34	191.34	191.34	191.34	191.34
Cohort size at vaccination age (female) (‘000)	118.68	118.68	118.68	118.68	118.68	118.68	118.68	118.68
Total costs of vaccination, A$ (‘000)	31,820.48	32,177.70	31,625.53	31,659.21	33,615.78	34,632.34	33,048.30	33,168.74
Total treatment costs averted, A$ (‘000)	3,709.75	3,709.75	3,709.75	3,709.75	6,898.41	6,898.41	6,898.41	6,898.41
Net costs of the vaccination, A$ (‘000)	28,110.73	28,467.95	27,915.78	27,949.47	26,717.37	27,733.93	26,149.90	26,270.33
Number of averted-
- Cervical cancers case averted	113	113	113	113	113	113	113	113
- Deaths averted	23	23	23	23	23	23	23	23
- Life years saved	543	543	543	543	543	543	543	543
Nonfatal DALYs averted	55	55	55	55	55	55	55	55
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per-
- Cervical cancers case averted, A$	248,767	251,929	247,042	247,340	236,437	245,433	231,415	232,481
- Life saved, A$	1,222,205	1,237,737	1,213,730	1,215,194	1,161,625	1,205,823	1,136,952	1,142,188
- Life year saved1, A$	51,769	52,427	51,410	51,472	49,203	51,075	48,158	48,380
- DALYs averted1, A$	47,008	47,605	46,682	46,738	44,678	46,378	43,729	43,930
Cost-effectiveness threshold
GDP per capita, A$	73,267	73,267	73,267	73,267	73,267	73,267	73,267	73,267
Decision rules
- Very cost-effective1	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
- Cost-effective2
- No cost-effective3

1Very cost-effective if ICER per DALYs averted < 1 time GDP per capita

2cost-effective if ICER per DALYs averted ≥ 1 times GDP per capita and ≤ 3 times GDP per capita

3no cost-effective if ICER per DALYs averted > 3 times GDP per capita.

*Costs and DALYs were discounted at 5% per year.

Sensitivity analysis

Model uncertainty was investigated by changing the values of input parameters in the cost-effectiveness model from the health system (Fig 2) and societal perspectives (Fig 3). The output of the deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that the price of vaccine, vaccine delivery costs, the incidence of cervical cancer, vaccination coverage, vaccine efficacy, and cervical cancer treatment costs were the dominating parameters that influence the ICERs per DALY averted. These findings are conservative, as only a simple static model of 9vHPV vaccination was considered. According to the WHO-CHOICE threshold, the 9vHPV vaccination is a very cost-effective and favourable option for introduction in Australia. This analysis indicates that the model outputs are robust to variation in the values of all parameters; however, there is a necessity to confirm that the pricing of the vaccine is appropriate in the context of Australia.

Fig 2

Changes in input model parameters on ICER per DALY averted from a health system perspective.

Fig 3

Changes in input model parameters on ICER per DALY averted from a societal perspective.

Discussion

The present study is a comprehensive cost-effectiveness evaluation of the introduction of a NIP with the new 9vHPV vaccine to adolescent girls in Australia. The impact of 9vHPV vaccination on health and economic outcomes was measured using various model scenarios allowing for the testing of three different vaccine delivery strategies.

The findings show that the new 9-valent vaccination of 12-year-old adolescent girls is highly cost-effective, with ICERs per DALY of A$47,008 and A$44,678, from the health system and societal perspectives, respectively. Although the 9vHPV vaccination has been implemented as part of the school-based delivery strategy, the present study has emphasised two other hypothetical delivery strategies, namely health facility-based and outreach-based programs. If the 9vHPV vaccination program is extended to these delivery outlets, the ICER remains highly cost-effective at A$46,682/DALY averted for health facility-based and A$46,738/DALY averted for outreach-based vaccination programs compared with a school-based vaccination program (ICER = A$47,605/DALY averted). Considering the societal perspective, the 9vHPV vaccination also reports a very cost-effective outcome, with an ICER of A$46,378/DALY averted, A$43,729/DALY averted, and A$43,930/DALY averted for the school-based, health facility-based and outreach-based vaccination programs, respectively. It is noteworthy that the ICERs are comparatively lower from the societal perspective in terms of vaccine delivery strategies compared with the health system perspective.

Immunisation would still be very cost-effective from both the health system and societal perspectives if the program is extended to encompass other delivery strategies. However, no herd immunity was considered in the context of these strategies. This evaluation provides a piece of initial evidence for the value of money of investments in the 9vHPV vaccination and protection against transient and persistent infections of HPV. Under the input model assumptions, the present evaluation of the two-dose 9vHPV vaccination would be very cost-effective across delivery strategies. From the societal perspective, the ICER per DALYs averted was comparatively lower than the health system perspective in terms of delivery strategies. The cost-effectiveness evaluation is significant even allowing for different vaccine delivery strategies and vaccination model assumptions.

This study findings are consistent with the conclusions from the evaluation of cost-effectiveness of the 9vHPV vaccination in other country settings including Austria [62], Canada [19], Germany [28], Italy [5], Kenya and Uganda [30], South Africa [52], and the US [21,63]. These studies estimated that an immunisation programs with the 9vHPV vaccine was likely to belong within an acceptance heuristic threshold level of cost-effectiveness or even reach cost-saving status in different country settings. In Canada, the 9vHPV vaccine was offered to school-aged girls and evidenced to be cost-effective at a price increment lower than CAN$24 [19]. Further, 9vHPV was found to be cost-effective in the US, if the incremental cost per dose of the 9vHPV was less than US$13 for a gender-neutral strategy (school-aged girls only) from a health system perspective [64]. From a societal perspective, the 9vHPV vaccine would also be considered very cost-effective at the national and state levels in the US if the vaccine price of 9vHPV was US$148 per dose (in 2016) [65], whereas two-dose schedules of the 9vHPV vaccine were likely more cost-efficient compared with three-dose schedules considering the population-level effectiveness [18]. Another recent study showed that introducing a universal 9vHPV vaccination in Germany would yield noteworthy incremental public health benefits and be highly cost-effective [28].

The present evaluation was performed among school-aged preadolescent girls (i.e., 12 years of age). Previous studies confirmed that vaccination of girls only was commonly more effective versus vaccination of both genders in different settings [28,32]. The two-dose 9vHPV vaccination approach is recommended for the target cohort of adolescent girls aged 12 to 14 years for several reasons [39]. Giving the vaccination at this age is likely to ensure immunization before their first sexual encounter and HPV exposure. As a result, the immune response tends to be stronger and more long-lasting when the vaccine is present in preadolescent girls. A vaccination schedule against HPV would allow for a more efficient primary strategy by protecting females exposed to male partners and unvaccinated females to prevent HPV transmission [9,28,63]. Eventually it would provide additional benefits to potentially accomplish virus eradication [28].

Most previous studies pay little attention to comparing the cost-effectiveness from the health system and societal point of views across vaccine delivery strategies. Thus, the evidence produced is not sufficient for health policymakers to decide upon effective or conclusive strategies. This study findings however provides effective and efficient empirical evidence of its economic viability. Health policymakers can use this evidence for the allocation of health resources and extend their vaccination program to other country settings to ensure optimal health gains.

This study has some strengths that should be highlighted. This vaccination is justified overall by epidemiological and health and economic outcomes. Under the input model assumptions, this study demonstrates that the 9vHPV vaccination is economically viable from both the health system and societal perspectives. A broader societal perspective calculates additional benefits of the new vaccine that are mainly associated with reduced productivity losses. HPV-related cervical lesions lead to a loss or reduction of women’s household income due to high productivity loss (presenteeism) and absenteeism [66]. Ultimately, HPV related diseases lead to a decrease in a victim’s socioeconomic position, which is costly for working women, their employers, and the economy. The study findings show distinctly that three vaccine delivery strategies (e.g., school-based, health facilities and outreach-based) are cost-effective. This is significant for health policymakers, strategic leaders, health scientists, cancer experts and public health professionals to help promote further implementation and extension of vaccination via a universal immunisation strategy.

This study also has some caveats. Little evidence is available on the health and economic burden of cervical cancer in Australia. Some of the model parameters related to indirect costs for cervical cancer treatment and costs of vaccination across vaccine delivery strategies (e.g., school-based, health facility-based, and outreach-based) are not available for Australia. Indirect costs of patients (e.g., opportunity costs) in terms of absenteeism due to cervical cancer and caregiver time were taken from the academic literature and anecdotal evidence in Australia and international sources. In this context, the cost-of-illness study would be appropriate for measuring the productivity losses of patients and their caregivers. However, due to a limited timeframe it was not able to conduct a cost-of-illness study among cervical cancer patients. It was presumed that the 9vHPV vaccine would be delivered to both boys and girls, but that it would only be cost-effective among girls, as the direct health impacts for 9vHPV is expected to be small for boys. This study used the GDP per capita thresholds level as defined by CMH. The GDP threshold might be a suitable screening method but should not be the only consideration for vaccination investment as there are other issues such as feasibility, affordability, alternative interventions and other local considerations which are not accounted for in the threshold level decision rule. Finally, the study findings were generated for the national context in Australia and might vary by state or regional settings, depending on cervical cancer outcomes (e.g., incidence, mortality), treatment procedures, cancer stages, costs of vaccination, and coverage of immunisation.

Conclusions

This study is an extensive cost-effectiveness analysis of 9vHPV vaccination in Australia from both the health system and societal perspectives. The introduction of the 9vHPV immunisation is assessed to be very cost-effective from both perspectives. It incorporated three delivery strategies (school-based, health facility-based, and outreach-based). However, this high-value vaccination would need substantial upfront investments. Considering a two-dose schedule, the 9vHPV vaccination demonstrated ‘good value for money’, if the vaccination could accomplish a high vaccination coverage and provide protection. The findings of this evaluation contribute to decision-making about the incorporation of the 9vHPV vaccine into a universal cervical cancer vaccination program in Australia. With continued assessment of the potential vaccine properties as well as vaccine delivery and scale-up strategies, the two-dose 9vHPV vaccine would provide significant health and economic benefits for preadolescents and society. Finally, the success of 9vHPV vaccination will be contingent on several predominating factors including value for money, feasibility, acceptability, and affordability.

Cost analysis.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

29 Aug 2019

[EXSCINDED]

PONE-D-19-21887

The cost-effectiveness of controlling cervical cancer using a new 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine among school-aged girls in Australia

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Mahumud,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses all points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 13 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcia Edilaine Lopes Consolaro, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please clearly list in your methods section or as supporting information,  all the data sources and corresponding references used in this study. Additionally, if you collected any data that were not obtained from previously published research, provide details as to where these data are from and how they were collected.

3. We ask that you please use a more technically clear term to replace "sexual debut" as this not well defined in the manuscript and could be misinterpreted.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I found the work interesting and very detailed. Overall it was quite comprehensive, evaluating many parameters that may affect cost-effectiveness studies. My only suggestion concerns the quality of the figures, I believe they could improve a little more.

Reviewer #2: The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of adding a 9vHPV vaccine to the national immunization schedule in Australia across three different delivery strategies. The study is very interesting and important. The methods and results are described in detail. The conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion.

I would like make some observations:

1- In the objectives (page 5, line 26) the term “DALYs” is used by first time, please describe this acronym in this moment.

2- In the results (Page 12, line 11) the acronym “IECR” should be substituted by “ICER”?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10 Sep 2019

Response to Reviewer #1 comments:

Comment: I found the work interesting and very detailed. Overall it was quite comprehensive, evaluating many parameters that may affect cost-effectiveness studies. My only suggestion concerns the quality of the figures, I believe they could improve a little more.

Response: Authors express gratitude to the reviewer for their appreciation. The figures have been revised as per journal requirements. Please see the revised figures.

**************************************************************************************

Response to Reviewer #2 comments:

Comment-1:

The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of adding a 9vHPV vaccine to the national immunization schedule in Australia across three different delivery strategies. The study is very interesting and important. The methods and results are described in detail. The conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion.

Response: Authors express gratitude to the reviewer for their appreciation.

Comment-2: I would like make some observations: In the objectives (page 5, line 26) the term “DALYs” is used by first time, please describe this acronym in this moment.

Response: The text has been revised now by describing the term DALY (i.e., disability adjusted-life years) as advised by the reviewer. Please see page 6 (lines 7-8).

Comment-3: In the results (Page 12, line 11) the acronym “IECR” should be substituted by “ICER”?

Response: Authors are thankful to the reviewer for raising the issue. We have corrected the acronym (i.e., ICER). Please see page 12 (line-26).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

23 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-21887R1

The cost-effectiveness of controlling cervical cancer using a new 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine among school-aged girls in Australia

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Mahumud,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses all points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 07 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcia Edilaine Lopes Consolaro, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: After reviewing the work again, I noticed small issues that can be easily fixed:

1- On p. 2, line 7 and p. 3, line 23, please replace genotype by type, it is the most correct term today to refer to HPV types.

2- On p. 5, line 12, replace the term nonavalent-HPV vaccine with the abbreviation (9vHPV) that has been previously used.

3 - On p. 7, line 30, describe the term PBAC.

4 - On p. 8, line 6 describe the term WTP.

5 - On p. 8, line 23 describe the term NIP.

6 - On p. 16, line 20, separate the words "costper".

7 - On p. 18, line 5, separate the words "effectiveamong".

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

23 Sep 2019

Response to the editor’s and reviewer’s comments

Date: 23 September 2019

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “The cost-effectiveness of controlling cervical cancer using a new 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine among school-aged girls in Australia”. We found the reviewers’ comments/feedback very helpful in improving the manuscript and we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find attached the revised manuscript. We declare that all authors have no conflicts of interest. The manuscript has not been published in any other journal. Our point-by-point comments on the suggested revisions are below.

Best regards,

Rashidul Alam Mahumud (corresponding author)

PhD Candidate, MPH, MSc

On behalf of all of the co-authors

Health Economics Research,

Health Systems and Population Studies Division,

International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b),

Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh.

Response to Reviewer #1 comments:

Comment 1. All comments have been addressed. After reviewing the work again, I noticed small issues that can be easily fixed:

Response: We found the reviewers’ comments/feedback very helpful in improving the manuscript and we have revised the manuscript accordingly (please see the revised manuscript).

Comment 2. On p. 2, line 7 and p. 3, line 23, please replace genotype by type, it is the most correct term today to refer to HPV types.

Response: Thank you for your valuable concerns. The text has been corrected now accordingly (please see on page 2 (line-7) and page 3 (line-23)).

Comment 3. On p. 5, line 12, replace the term nonavalent-HPV vaccine with the abbreviation (9vHPV) that has been previously used.

Response: The term “nonavalent-HPV vaccine” has been replaced by “9vHPV” (please see on page 5, line-12).

Comment 4. On p. 7, line 30, describe the term PBAC.

Response: The text has been revised by describing the term PBAC as defined “Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee” (please see on page 7, lines-28-29).

Comment 5. On p. 8, line 6 describe the term WTP.

Response: The term WTP has been explained as “Willingness-to-pay” (please see page on 8, lines-4-5).

Comment 6. On p. 8, line 23 describe the term NIP.

Response: The term NIP has been described as “national immunisation program” (please see on page 8, line-21).

Comment 7. On p. 16, line 20, separate the words "costper".

Response: Corrected. Please see on page 16, line-19-20.

Comment 8. On p. 18, line 5, separate the words "effectiveamong".

Response: Corrected. Please see on page 18 (line 5).

Response to Reviewer #2 comments:

Comment-1: All comments have been addressed

Response: Authors express gratitude to the reviewer for their appreciation.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

26 Sep 2019

The cost-effectiveness of controlling cervical cancer using a new 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine among school-aged girls in Australia

PONE-D-19-21887R2

Dear Dr. Mahumud,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Marcia Edilaine Lopes Consolaro, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

1 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-21887R2

The cost-effectiveness of controlling cervical cancer using a new 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine among school-aged girls in Australia

Dear Dr. Mahumud:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Marcia Edilaine Lopes Consolaro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE