Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of switching from bivalent to nonavalent vaccine for human papillomavirus in Norway: incorporating the full health impact of all HPV-related diseases

Aim The objective of this study was to estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of switching from a bivalent to a nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program in Norway, incorporating all nonavalent vaccine-preventable HPV-related diseases and in the context of the latest cervical cancer screening program.Methods A well-established dynamic transmission model of the natural history of HPV infection and disease was adapted to the Norwegian population. We determined the number of cases of HPV-related diseases and subsequent number of deaths, and the economic burden of HPV-related disease under the current standard of care conditions of bivalent and nonavalent vaccinations of girls and boys aged 12 years.Results Compared to bivalent vaccination, nonavalent vaccination averted an additional 4,357 cases of HPV-related cancers, 421,925 cases of genital warts, and 543 cases of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) over a 100-year time horizon. Nonavalent vaccination also averted an additional 1,044 deaths over the 100-year time horizon when compared with bivalent vaccination. Total costs were higher for the nonavalent strategy (10.5 billion NOK [euro1.03 billion] vs. 9.3-9.4 billion NOK [euro915-925 million] for bivalent vaccination). A switch to nonavalent vaccination had a higher vaccination cost (4.4 billion NOK [euro433 million] vs. 2.7 billion NOK [euro266 million] for bivalent vaccination) but resulted in a savings of 627-694 million NOK [euro62-68 million] in treatment costs. A switch to nonavalent vaccination demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 102,500 NOK (euro10,086) per QALY versus bivalent vaccination.Conclusions Using a model that incorporated the full range of HPV-related diseases, and the latest cervical cancer screening practices, we found that switching from bivalent to nonavalent vaccination would be considered cost-effective in Norway. Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a sexually transmitted infection that is common in Norway. Vaccination against HPV has substantially reduced the burden of HPV-related diseases globally. The HPV vaccine is available in bivalent, quadrivalent, and nonavalent forms. The bivalent vaccine is currently used in the Norwegian national immunization program, but the nonavalent vaccine is also licensed in Norway. In order to gain a more complete understanding of the benefits of nonavalent vaccination, it is necessary to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching from the bivalent vaccine to the nonavalent vaccine in light of the full array of vaccine-preventable diseases, including both cervical and noncervical cancers, genital warts, and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP). Our results show that, when the full range of HPV-related diseases is considered, nonavalent vaccination would be cost-effective relative to bivalent vaccination in Norway. Compared to bivalent vaccination, nonavalent vaccination averted an additional 4,357 cases of HPV-related cancers, 421,925 cases of genital warts, and 543 cases of RRP over a 100-year time horizon. Nonavalent vaccination also averted an additional 1,044 deaths over the 100-year time horizon when compared with bivalent vaccination. While total costs were higher for the nonavalent strategy (10.5 billion NOK [euro1.03 billion] vs. 9.3-9.4 billion NOK [euro915-925 million] for bivalent vaccination), switching to the nonavalent strategy resulted in a savings of 627-694 million NOK [euro62-68 million] in treatment costs compared to the bivalent strategy.

Automated summary

The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching from a bivalent to a nonavalent HPV vaccination program in Norway. The results show that nonavalent vaccination can prevent additional cases of HPV-related cancers, genital warts, and respiratory papillomatosis compared to bivalent vaccination. Although the total costs are higher for the nonavalent strategy, the switch can result in savings in treatment costs.