4.5 Review

Modeling Preventative Strategies against Human Papillomavirus-Related Disease in Developed Countries

Journal

VACCINE
Volume 30, Issue -, Pages F157-F167

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.06.091

Keywords

HPV; Intraepithelial neoplasia; Uterine cervical neoplasms; Vulvar; Vaginal; Anal; Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer; Anogenital warts; Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis; Vaccines; Mathematical models; Cervical cancer screening; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Developed countries

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia [CDF APP1007994, 1007518]
  2. non-commercial government and academic consulting agreements in Australia, New Zealand and the UK
  3. Cancer Council NSW, Australia
  4. U.S. National Cancer Institute [U54 CA164336, R01 CA160744-01A1]
  5. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [30505]
  6. European Commission [HEALTH-F3-2010-242061]
  7. Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Spanish Government) [FIS PI10/02995, FIS PI11/02090, RCESP C03/09, RTICESP C03/10, RTIC RD06/0020/0095, CIBERESP]
  8. Agencia de Gestio d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca-Generalitat de Catalunya (Catalonian Government) [AGAUR 2005SGR00695, AGAUR 2009SGR126]
  9. GlaxoSmithKline
  10. Merck
  11. Sanofi Pasteur MSD
  12. Qiagen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Over the last 5 years, prophylactic vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) in pre-adolescent females has been introduced in most developed countries, supported by modeled evaluations that have almost universally found vaccination of pre-adolescent females to be cost-effective. Studies to date suggest that vaccination of pre-adolescent males may also be cost-effective at a cost per vaccinated individual of similar to US$400-500 if vaccination coverage in females cannot be increased above similar to 50%; but if it is possible, increasing coverage in females appears to be a better return on investment. Comparative evaluation of the quadrivalent (HPV16,18,6,11) and bivalent (HPV16,18) vaccines centers around the potential trade-off between protection against anogenital warts and vaccine-specific levels of cross-protection against infections not targeted by the vaccines. Future evaluations will also need to consider the cost-effectiveness of a next generation nonavalent vaccine designed to protect against similar to 90% of cervical cancers. The timing of the effect of vaccination on cervical screening programs will be country-specific and will depend on vaccination catch-up age range and coverage and the age at which screening starts. Initial evaluations suggest that if screening remains unchanged, it will be less cost-effective in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated women but, in the context of current vaccines, will remain an important prevention method. Comprehensive evaluation of new approaches to screening will need to consider the population-level effects of vaccination over time. New screening strategies of particular interest include delaying the start age of screening, increasing the screening interval and switching to primary HPV screening. Future evaluations of screening will also need to focus on the effects of disparities in screening and vaccination uptake, the potential effects of vaccination on screening participation, and the effects of imperfect compliance with screening recommendations. This article forms part of a special supplement entitled Comprehensive Control of HPV Infections and Related Diseases Vaccine Volume 30, Supplement 5, 2012. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available