Vaccine · 2017
Cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination in the context of high cervical cancer incidence and low screening coverage.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Võrno Triin, Lutsar Katrin, Uusküla Anneli, Padrik Lee, Raud Terje, Reile Rainer, Nahkur Oliver, Kiivet Raul-Allan
Аннотация
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.
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.