Cost-effectiveness analysis of single-dose or 2-dose of bivalent, quadrivalent, or nonavalent HPV vaccine in a low/middle-income country setting

• DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e85
• Publication Date: 2024-04-22T06:56:42Z
• Authors: Wichai Termrungru...; Nipon Khemapech; Apichai Vasuratna; Piyalamporn Havanond; Tanitra Tantitamit

To compare the health impact and economic benefits among individuals who did not receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to those who received a single dose, or 2 doses. The comparison was stratified by 4 types of vaccine in conjunction with primary HPV screening in a low/middle-income country setting.A Markov model was employed to simulate HPV infection and cervical cancer in a cohort of 100,000 12-year-old girls free of HPV. The study scrutinized 9 strategies: 1 dose and 2 doses of 2vHPV (Cervarix®), 2vHPV (Cecolin®), 4vHPV (Gardasil®), 9vHPV vaccine (Gardasil9®), and no vaccination. The primary outcome measure was the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of each strategy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated over a lifetime horizon, accompanied by sensitivity analyses conducted.All vaccination programs yielded 41,298-71,057 QALYs gained accompanied by cost savings of 14,914,186-19,821,655 USD compared to no vaccination. Administering 2 doses of 9vHPV vaccine emerged as the most cost-effective strategy, boasting 406 USD/QALY, within a lower willingness to pay threshold. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated an 80% probability of the cost-effectiveness of the 2 doses of 9vHPV vaccine regimen. Furthermore, uncertainty around the costs of vaccination and vaccine efficacy exerted the most substantial influence on the cost-effectiveness findings.Oping for 2 doses of 9vHPV vaccine in conjunction with a primary HPV screening represents the most cost-effective option for implementing a school-based HPV vaccination program targeting 12-year-old girls in Thailand. Such findings provide valuable insights for policymakers in the realm of cervical cancer prevention.