Premium
Choosing the optimal HPV vaccine: The health impact and economic value of the nonavalent and bivalent HPV vaccines in 48 Gavi‐eligible countries
Author(s) -
Burger Emily A.,
Portnoy Allison,
Campos Nicole G.,
Sy Stephen,
Regan Catherine,
Kim Jane J.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
international journal of cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.475
H-Index - 234
eISSN - 1097-0215
pISSN - 0020-7136
DOI - 10.1002/ijc.33233
Subject(s) - bivalent (engine) , medicine , vaccination , human papillomavirus vaccine , vaccine efficacy , per capita , virology , cervical cancer , gardasil , environmental health , population , cancer , chemistry , organic chemistry , metal
The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines may provide some level of cross‐protection against high‐risk HPV genotypes not directly targeted by the vaccines. We evaluated the long‐term health and economic impacts of routine HPV vaccination using either the nonavalent HPV vaccine or the bivalent HPV vaccine in the context of 48 Gavi‐eligible countries. We used a multi‐modeling approach to compare the bivalent with or without cross‐protection and the nonavalent HPV vaccine. The optimal, that is, most cost‐effective, vaccine was the vaccine with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio below the per‐capita gross domestic product (GDP) for each country. By 2100 and assuming 70% HPV vaccination coverage, a bivalent vaccine without cross‐protection, a bivalent vaccine with favorable cross‐protection and the nonavalent vaccine were projected to avert 14.9, 17.2 and 18.5 million cumulative cases of cervical cancer across all 48 Gavi‐eligible countries, respectively. The relative value of the bivalent vaccine compared to the nonavalent vaccine increased assuming a bivalent vaccine conferred high cross‐protection. For example, assuming a cost‐effectiveness threshold of per‐capita GDP, the nonavalent vaccine was optimal in 83% (n = 40) of countries if the bivalent vaccine did not confer cross‐protection; however, the proportion of countries decreased to 63% (n = 30) if the bivalent vaccine conferred high cross‐protection. For lower cost‐effectiveness thresholds, the bivalent vaccine was optimal in a greater proportion of countries, under both cross‐protection assumptions. Although the nonavalent vaccine is projected to avert more cases of cervical cancer, the bivalent vaccine with favorable cross‐protection can prevent a considerable number of cases and would be considered a high‐value vaccine for many Gavi‐eligible countries.