4.6 Article

The epidemiological and economic impact of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (6/11/16/18) in the UK

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01743.x

Keywords

cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; cost-effectiveness analysis; economics; epidemiology; human papillomavirus; uterine cervical neoplasms; vaccines

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To assess the potential epidemiological and economic impact of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) (6/11/16/18) vaccine for preventing cervical cancer, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN2/3), CIN1 and genital warts. Design Cost-utility analysis. Setting UK. Population Female and male UK population 12 years or older. Methods We adapted a previously developed multi-HPV type dynamic transmission to compare four female vaccination strategies, routine vaccination at age 12 years, and routine vaccination at age 12 years combined with temporary catch-up vaccination at ages 12-14, 12-17 and 12-24 years. Main outcomes measures Costs, cases avoided, incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results The model projected that at year 100, each vaccination strategy could reduce the number of HPV 6/11/16/18-related cervical cancer, CIN2/3, CIN1 and genital wart cases among women by 86, 85, 79 and 89% respectively. Over 25 years, routine vaccination at age 12 years combined with a 12- to 24-year-old catch-up programme was the most effective strategy, reducing the cumulative number of cases of cervical cancer, CIN2/3, CIN1 and genital warts by 5800, 146 000, 28 000, and 1.1 million respectively. Over 100 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios across all strategies ranged from 5882 pound to 11,412 pound per QALY gained. Conclusion In the UK, a quadrivalent HPV vaccination programme that includes a catch-up strategy can reduce the incidence of cervical cancer, CIN and genital warts at a cost per QALY ratio within the range typically regarded as cost-effective.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available