Yan Luo1, Hanqing He2, Xuewen Tang2, Shenyu Wang2, Jun Zhang1, Ting Wu1, Zhiping Chen2. 1. National Institute of Diagnostics and Vaccine Development in Infectious Diseases, School of Public Health, Xiamen University , Xiamen, China. 2. Institute of Immunization and Prevention, Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention , Hangzhou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The high cost and insufficient supply of HPV vaccines have substantially slowed their implementation in lower-income countries. This study aimed to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of two doses of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination (bivalent 16/18 vaccine; 2vHPV) compared to a no-vaccination scenario and a three-dose scenario in one province in China. METHODS: A static Markov model was used to model a lifetime cohort of 100,000 girls aged 12 years at the start of vaccination. A two-dose vaccination schedule was assumed to be non-inferior to a three-dose schedule in terms of vaccine efficacy, and both vaccination schemes were assumed to provide lifelong protection. Incremental costs, health effects and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to measure the outcomes when comparing the different strategies. RESULTS: Compared to no vaccination, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (Chinese yuan per quality-adjusted life year) of the two-dose vaccination strategy is 12,472, and the 2-dose strategy is calculated to be cost saving relative to the 3-dose vaccination strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing the 2vHPV vaccine would be highly cost effective at a per-dose vaccine price of CNY 500, which has implications for cervical cancer control in China and other resource-limited countries.
BACKGROUND: The high cost and insufficient supply of HPV vaccines have substantially slowed their implementation in lower-income countries. This study aimed to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of two doses of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination (bivalent 16/18 vaccine; 2vHPV) compared to a no-vaccination scenario and a three-dose scenario in one province in China. METHODS: A static Markov model was used to model a lifetime cohort of 100,000 girls aged 12 years at the start of vaccination. A two-dose vaccination schedule was assumed to be non-inferior to a three-dose schedule in terms of vaccine efficacy, and both vaccination schemes were assumed to provide lifelong protection. Incremental costs, health effects and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to measure the outcomes when comparing the different strategies. RESULTS: Compared to no vaccination, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (Chinese yuan per quality-adjusted life year) of the two-dose vaccination strategy is 12,472, and the 2-dose strategy is calculated to be cost saving relative to the 3-dose vaccination strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing the 2vHPV vaccine would be highly cost effective at a per-dose vaccine price of CNY 500, which has implications for cervical cancer control in China and other resource-limited countries.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cervical cancer; China; HPV vaccine; bivalent; cost-effectiveness; expanded program on immunization
Authors: A B Moscicki; N Hills; S Shiboski; K Powell; N Jay; E Hanson; S Miller; L Clayton; S Farhat; J Broering; T Darragh; J Palefsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-06-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: S Y Tao; J R Peng; Y Wang; G T Zhang; Z Y Chen; F Zhao; J Q Ma; X Yang; Y L Qiao; F H Zhao; C X Yang Journal: Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi Date: 2018-12-06
Authors: Edina Sinanovic; Jennifer Moodley; Mark A Barone; Sumaya Mall; Susan Cleary; Jane Harries Journal: Vaccine Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Aimée R Kreimer; Ana Cecilia Rodriguez; Allan Hildesheim; Rolando Herrero; Carolina Porras; Mark Schiffman; Paula González; Diane Solomon; Silvia Jiménez; John T Schiller; Douglas R Lowy; Wim Quint; Mark E Sherman; John Schussler; Sholom Wacholder Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Syed Aljunid; Namaitijiang Maimaiti; Amrizal M Nur; Mohd Rushdan Md Noor; Sharifa Ezat Wan Puteh Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-01-23 Impact factor: 3.295