| Literature DB >> 35509519 |
Munkh-Erdene Luvsan1, Elisabeth Vodicka2, Uranbolor Jugder3, Undarmaa Tudev3, Andy Clark4, Devin Groman2, Dashpagam Otgonbayar5, Sodbayar Demberelsuren6, D Scott LaMongtagne2, Clint Pecenka2.
Abstract
Introduction: Cervical cancer is a leading cause of cancer among women in Mongolia with an age-standardized incidence rate of 23.5 per 100,000. HPV vaccination has not been introduced nationally and Gavi co-financing support is not available in Mongolia. Extended Gavi pricing for HPV vaccine may be available from vaccine manufacturers for a number of years. To inform introduction decision-making, we evaluated the potential cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination among girls and young women in Mongolia.Entities:
Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; DALY; HPV; ICER; Mongolia; Vaccination
Year: 2022 PMID: 35509519 PMCID: PMC9059071 DOI: 10.1016/j.jvacx.2022.100161
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vaccine X ISSN: 2590-1362
Annual age-specific cervical cancer burden per 100,000 (by stage) in 2018.
| <24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Estimated from National Cancer Center of Mongolia 2018 registry data. |
| 25–29 | 4.9 | 2.1 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 2.1 | |
| 30–34 | 15.9 | 9.7 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 0.7 | |
| 35–39 | 33.9 | 18.6 | 14.4 | 0.8 | 4.2 | |
| 40–44 | 48.1 | 21.8 | 20.8 | 5.6 | 9.3 | |
| 45–49 | 51.5 | 19.1 | 25.3 | 7.2 | 17.5 | |
| 50–54 | 68.6 | 23.3 | 39.5 | 5.8 | 19.8 | |
| 55–59 | 69.4 | 17.4 | 45.1 | 6.9 | 29.2 | |
| 60–64 | 70.2 | 23.4 | 31.9 | 14.9 | 48.9 | |
| 65–69 | 86.2 | 20.7 | 58.6 | 6.9 | 62.1 | |
| 70–74 | 63.2 | 13.2 | 39.5 | 10.5 | 52.6 | |
| 75+ | 77.8 | 14.8 | 44.4 | 18.5 | 77.8 | |
We used 2018 incident case estimates for each disease event to calculate age-specific mortality and cumulative incidence rates. The denominator was the age-specific female population for 2018 based on World Bank data. Mortality and incident case data were provided by NCC. We collapsed ages 0–24 years old and 75+ years old and applied the same event rates to all individuals in those respective categories. 25–74-year-old age group estimates were based on the specific estimates for each 5-year age category. Case rates based on TNM staging were converted to local (37%), regional (52%) and distant (11%) invasive cancer rates in consultation with local experts and the NCC. The cancer registry data did not distinguish between TNM stage 2a (local invasive cancer) and TNM stage 2b (regional invasive cancer) cases. Thus, we assumed that 50% of Stage 2 cases were 2a (local) and 50% were 2b (regional).
Key model parameters for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccine.
| 16/18 | 64.3% | |
| 31 | 7.1% | |
| 33 | 14.3% | |
| 45 | Not identified | |
| Local | 28.8% (19.3–39.9%) | |
| Regional | 45.1% (30.7–60.0%) | |
| Distant | 54% (37.7–68.7%) | |
| Local | 15 (7.5–22.5) | Assumption based on SurvCan data from India |
| Regional | 7.5 (3.75–11.25) | Assumption based on SurvCan data from India |
| Distant | 2.5 (1.25–3.75) | Assumption based on SurvCan data from India |
| Dose 1 | 93% (74–100%) | EPI and 2018 WHO Technical Report (unpublished) |
| Dose 2 | 93% (74–100%) | EPI and 2018 WHO Technical Report (unpublished) |
| 2-dose efficacy among girls | ||
| Gardasil® | 65.6% (61.2–68.5%) | |
| Cervarix™ | 78.8% (71.3–82.8%) | |
| International handing (% of vaccine price) | 4% | Assumption |
| International delivery (% of vaccine price) | 15% | Assumption |
| HPV vaccine wastage | 5% | Derived from 2018 Technical Report and EPI |
| Syringe and safety box price per dose | $0.05 | Derived from 2018 Technical Report and EPI |
| HPV vaccine price per dose | Girls’ program | |
| Gardasil® | $4.50 ($0–14.17) | |
| Cervarix™ | $4.60 ($0–14.17) | |
| Vaccine delivery cost per dose by year | Girls’ program | Base case estimates calculated based on data from EPI and 2018 Technical Report for annual birth cohort population |
| 2022 | $14.25 ($7.13–21.38) | |
| 2023 | $7.07 ($3.54–10.61) | |
| 2024 | $6.95 ($3.48–10.43) | |
| 2025 | $6.89 ($3.44–10.33) | |
| 2026 | $6.87 ($3.44–10.31) | |
| 2027 | $6.85 ($3.43–10.28) | |
| 2028 | $6.84 ($3.42–10.26) | |
| 2029 | $6.83 ($3.41–10.24) | |
| 2030 | $6.82 ($3.41–10.22) | |
| 2031 | $6.81 ($3.4–10.21) | |
| Local | $2,355 ($1,178–3,533) (Government);$2,413 | Calculated based on 2018 Technical Report and NCC expert opinion. Range: ±50% |
| Regional | $4,310 ($2,155–6,465) (Government);$4,368 | Calculated based on 2018 Technical Report and NCC expert opinion. Range: ±50% |
| Distant | $2,882 ($1,441–4,323) (Government);$2,946 | Calculated based on 2018 Technical Report and NCC expert opinion. Range: ±50% |
Due to limited survival data, base case average duration of illness was estimated using SurvCan data from India [18] using the Declining Exponential Approximation of Life Expectancy method to convert five-year survival rates into average duration of life expressed in years [17]. Low and high range estimates were calculated ±20% of base case estimate.
Fig. 1Cervical cancer cases, DALYs and deaths averted with vaccination over 10 birth cohorts compared to no vaccination by scenario.
Cost outcomes by scenario for vaccination over 10 birth cohorts evaluated from government and societal perspectives.
| 9-year-old girls | HPV4 | $4.50 annually | $265 | $259 | $3,146,680 | $3,074,336 | $7,378,136 | $6,933,639 (G);$7,052,181 | $2,702,183 (G);$2,748,381 | $4,231,456 (G);$4,303,800 |
| $4.50 annually until 2026; | $569 | $563 | $6,760,331 | $6,687,987 | $10,991,787 | |||||
| $14.17 annually | $820 | $814 | $9,749,038 | $9,676,694 | $13,980,494 | |||||
| HPV2 | $4.60 annually | $166 | $160 | $2,367,468 | $2,280,635 | $7,446,413 | $1,854,694 (G);$1,886,403 | $5,078,945 (G);$5,165,778 | ||
| $4.60 annually until 2026; | $417 | $411 | $5,943,749 | $5,856,916 | $11,022,694 | |||||
| $14.17 annually | $624 | $618 | $8,901,549 | $8,814,716 | $13,980,494 | |||||
| $14.17 annually, increase 5% per year | $2,138 | $2,131 | $6,718,486 | $6,699,194 | $7,847,477 | |||||
HPV4 = Quadrivalent vaccine; HPV2 = Bivalent vaccine; G = government perspective; S = societal perspective.
Total incremental costs = Vaccine program costs less cervical cancer treatment costs averted by vaccination.
Fig. 2One-way sensitivity analyses results over 10 birth cohorts from the government perspective assuming no year-over-year change in vaccine price.
Fig. 3Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves demonstrating probability that vaccination is cost-effective at various willingness-to-pay thresholds by scenario from the government perspective.
Fig. 4Comparison of HPV Vaccine cost-effectiveness results compared to other vaccine economic evidence in Mongolia.