Comparison of two dose and three dose human papillomavirus vaccine schedules: cost effectiveness analysis based on transmission model

Objective To investigate the incremental cost effectiveness of two dose human papillomavirus vaccination and of additionally giving a third dose. Design Cost effectiveness study based on a transmission dynamic model of human papillomavirus vaccination. Two dose schedules for bivalent or quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines were assumed to provide 10, 20, or 30 years' vaccine type protection and cross protection or lifelong vaccine type protection without cross protection. Three dose schedules were assumed to give lifelong vaccine type and cross protection. Setting United Kingdom. Population Males and females aged 12-74 years. Interventions No, two, or three doses of human papillomavirus vaccine given routinely to 12 year old girls, with an initial catch-up campaign to 18 years. Main outcome measure Costs (from the healthcare provider's perspective), health related utilities, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios. Results Giving at least two doses of vaccine seems to be highly cost effective across the entire range of scenarios considered at the quadrivalent vaccine list price of 86.50 pound ((sic)109.23; $136.00) per dose. If two doses give only 10 years' protection but adding a third dose extends this to lifetime protection, then the third dose also seems to be cost effective at 86.50 pound per dose (median incremental cost effectiveness ratio 17 pound 000, interquartile range 11 pound 700-25 pound 800). If two doses protect for more than 20 years, then the third dose will have to be priced substantially lower (median threshold price 31 pound, interquartile range 28- pound 35) pound to be cost effective. Results are similar for a bivalent vaccine priced at 80.50 pound per dose and when the same scenarios are explored by parameterising a Canadian model (HPV-ADVISE) with economic data from the United Kingdom. Conclusions Two dose human papillomavirus vaccine schedules are likely to be the most cost effective option provided protection lasts for at least 20 years. As the precise duration of two dose schedules may not be known for decades, cohorts given two doses should be closely monitored.