Abstract
Background Most European countries offer human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination through organized immunisation programmes, but the choice of vaccine varies. We compared the expected health and economic effects of the currently used bivalent vaccine, targeting HPV-16/18, and the nonavalent vaccine, targeting seven additional genotypes, for the Netherlands.
Methods We estimated the incremental impact of nonavalent versus bivalent vaccination in a cohort of 100,000 girls and 100,000 boys offered vaccination at age 10, by projecting type-specific infection risk reductions onto expected number of cervical screening outcomes, HPV-related cancers, and treatments for anogenital warts and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP). In the base-case, we assumed two-dose vaccination with 60% uptake, lifelong partial cross-protection against HPV-31/33/45 for the bivalent vaccine and EUR 25 extra costs per dose for the nonavalent vaccine. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by comparing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per life-year gained (LYG) with the Dutch threshold of EUR 20,000/LYG.
Findings Compared with bivalent vaccination, nonavalent vaccination prevents an additional 1320 high-grade cervical lesions, 70 cancers, 34,000 anogenital warts episodes and 30 RRPs; and generates EUR 4·0 million discounted savings from fewer treatments. The ICER is EUR 6192 (95% credible interval: 4166; 7916)/LYG in the base-case, but exceeds the cost-effectiveness threshold when cross-protection for the bivalent vaccine extends to non-31/33/45 genotypes or when vaccine efficacy wanes past age 20 with either vaccine.
Interpretation Sex-neutral vaccination with the nonavalent vaccine is likely to be cost-effective. Long-term monitoring of type-specific vaccine effectiveness is essential because of the impact of cross-protection and waning efficacy on cost-effectiveness.
Competing Interest Statement
Johannes A. Bogaards is co-PI on the investigator-initiated research project HPV4M (Human papillomavirus vaccine effectiveness study among men who have sex with men), conducted at the Public Health Service of Amsterdam and financed by GlaxoSmithKline. Birgit Sollie and Johannes Berkhof report no financial relationships or conflicts of interest regarding the content herein.
Funding Statement
This paper is part of the project "HPV-COMPARE: Comparing the health and economic effects of different HPV vaccines and catch-up strategies of young adults in the Netherlands" funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw, grant 10150511910059). The funders had no role in the research design, data collection and analysis, manuscript preparation, or decision to submit for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
We changed some typo's in the Supplementary Material.
Data Availability
Data and code are available through GitHub, via BirgitSollie/HPV-COMPARE
