Center for Health Services Research, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
BMC Public Health. 2011 Mar 31;11:203. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-203.
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are widely available and there have been studies exploring their potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness. However, few studies have compared the cost-effectiveness among the 2 main vaccines available - a bivalent vaccine against HPV 16/18, and a quadrivalent vaccine against 6/11/16/18. We explore the cost-effectiveness of these two HPV vaccines in tropical Singapore.
We developed a Markov state-transition model to represent the natural history of cervical cancer to predict HPV infection, cancer incidence, mortality, and costs. Cytologic screening and treatment of different outcomes of HPV infection were incorporated. Vaccination was provided to a cohort of 12-year old females in Singapore, followed up until death. Based on available vaccines on the market, the bivalent vaccine had increased effectiveness against a wider range of HPV types, while the quadrivalent vaccine had effectiveness against genital warts. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) compared vaccination to no-vaccination, and between the two vaccines. Sensitivity analyses explored differences in vaccine effectiveness and uptake, and other key input parameters.
For the no vaccination scenario, 229 cervical cancer cases occurred over the cohort's lifetime. The total discounted cost per individual due to HPV infection was SGD$275 with 28.54 discounted life-years. With 100% vaccine coverage, the quadrivalent vaccine reduced cancers by 176, and had an ICER of SGD$12,866 per life-year saved. For the bivalent vaccine, 197 cancers were prevented with an ICER of $12,827 per life-year saved. Comparing the bivalent to the quadrivalent vaccine, the ICER was $12,488 per life-year saved. However, the cost per QALY saved for the quadrivalent vaccine compared to no vaccine was $9,071, while it was $10,392 for the bivalent vaccine, with the quadrivalent vaccine dominating the bivalent vaccine due to the additional QALY effect from reduction in genital warts. The overall outcomes were most sensitive to vaccine cost and coverage.
HPV vaccination is a cost-effective strategy, and should be considered a possible strategy to reduce the impact of HPV infection.
人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)疫苗已广泛应用,相关研究也在探索其潜在的临床效果和成本效益。然而,目前仅有少数研究对比了两种主要 HPV 疫苗的成本效益,这两种疫苗分别为针对 HPV16/18 的二价疫苗和针对 6/11/16/18 的四价疫苗。本研究旨在探索 HPV 疫苗在热带新加坡的成本效益。
我们建立了一个马尔可夫状态转移模型来描述宫颈癌的自然史,以预测 HPV 感染、癌症发病、死亡和成本。该模型纳入了细胞学筛查和不同 HPV 感染结局的治疗。我们对新加坡 12 岁女性进行疫苗接种,并随访至死亡。基于市场上现有的疫苗,二价疫苗对更广泛的 HPV 类型具有更高的有效性,而四价疫苗对生殖器疣具有有效性。增量成本效益比(ICER)用于比较疫苗接种与不接种疫苗以及两种疫苗之间的差异。敏感性分析探索了疫苗有效性和接种率以及其他关键输入参数的差异。
在不接种疫苗的情况下,该队列的一生中发生了 229 例宫颈癌。由于 HPV 感染导致的个人总贴现成本为 275 新加坡元,总贴现寿命为 28.54 年。在 100%疫苗接种覆盖率的情况下,四价疫苗减少了 176 例癌症,ICER 为每挽救 1 个生命年 12866 新加坡元。二价疫苗预防了 197 例癌症,ICER 为每挽救 1 个生命年 12827 新加坡元。二价疫苗与四价疫苗相比,ICER 为每挽救 1 个生命年 12488 新加坡元。然而,四价疫苗每挽救 1 个质量调整生命年的成本比不接种疫苗低 9071 新加坡元,二价疫苗则为 10392 新加坡元,四价疫苗因减少生殖器疣而产生额外的 QALY 效应而优于二价疫苗。总体结果对疫苗成本和覆盖率最敏感。
HPV 疫苗接种具有成本效益,应考虑将其作为降低 HPV 感染影响的一种可能策略。