title: Inclusion of the benefits of enhanced cross-protection against cervical cancer and prevention of genital warts in the cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus vaccination in the Netherlands.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Infection with HPV 16 and 18, the major causative agents of cervical cancer, can be prevented through vaccination with a bivalent or quadrivalent vaccine. Both vaccines provide cross-protection against HPV-types not included in the vaccines. In particular, the bivalent vaccine provides additional protection against HPV 31, 33, and 45 and the quadrivalent vaccine against HPV31. The quadrivalent vaccine additionally protects against low-risk HPV type 6 and 11, responsible for most cases of genital warts. In this study, we made an analytical comparison of the two vaccines in terms of cost-effectiveness including the additional benefits of cross-protection and protection against genital warts in comparison with a screening-only strategy.
  
  
  METHODS
  We used a Markov model, simulating the progression from HPV infection to cervical cancer or genital warts. The model was used to estimate the difference in future costs and health effects of both HPV-vaccines separately.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In a cohort of 100,000 women, use of the bivalent or quadrivalent vaccine (both at 50% vaccination coverage) reduces the cervical cancer incidence by 221 and 207 cases, corresponding to ICERs of €17,600/QALY and €18,900/QALY, respectively. It was estimated that the quadrivalent vaccine additionally prevents 4390 cases of genital warts, reducing the ICER to €16,300/QALY. Assuming a comparable willingness to pay for cancer and genital warts prevention, the difference in ICERs could justify a slightly higher price (~7% per dose) in favor of the quadrivalent vaccine.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Clearly, HPV vaccination has been implemented for the prevention of cervical cancer. From this perspective, use of the bivalent HPV vaccine appears to be most effective and cost-effective. Including the benefits of prevention against genital warts, the ICER of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine was found to be slightly more favourable. However, current decision-making on the introduction of HPV is driven by the primary cervical cancer outcome. New vaccine tenders could consider the benefits of cross-protection and the benefits of genital warts, which requires more balanced decision-making.
authors: Department of Medical Microbiology, Molecular Virology Section, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713AV, Groningen, The Netherlands. t.a.westra@umcg.nl
authors: Tjalke A
authors: TA
authors: Westra
authors: Irina
authors: I
authors: Stirbu-Wagner
authors: Sara
authors: S
authors: Dorsman
authors: Eric D
authors: ED
authors: Tutuhatunewa
authors: Edwin L
authors: EL
authors: de Vrij
authors: Hans W
authors: HW
authors: Nijman
authors: Toos
authors: T
authors: Daemen
authors: Jan C
authors: JC
authors: Wilschut
authors: Maarten J
authors: MJ
authors: Postma
mesh_terms: D003218:Condylomata Acuminata / Q000276:immunology / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D056738:Cross Protection; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D032541:Mass Vaccination / Q000191:economics*; D018803:Models, Economic; D009426:Netherlands; D027383:Papillomaviridae / Q000145:classification / Q000276:immunology; D053918:Papillomavirus Vaccines / Q000191:economics* / Q000276:immunology*; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000276:immunology / Q000473:pathology / Q000517:prevention & control*
chemical_list: D053918:Papillomavirus Vaccines
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Mar 3;102(5):325-39
references: 20139221
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Aug 5;101(15):1083-92
references: 19571256
references: Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 Oct;12(10):781-9
references: 22920953
references: BMJ. 2008 Jul 17;337:a769
references: 18640957
references: Cancer. 2010 Jun 1;116(11):2531-42
references: 20310056
references: Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Dec;115(3 Suppl):S1-6
references: 19217149
references: Sex Transm Infect. 2010 Dec;86(7):494-9
references: 20519252
references: Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2009;153:A356
references: 19930733
references: Sex Transm Infect. 2009 Sep;85(5):315-6
references: 19773455
references: Epidemiology. 2011 Jul;22(4):505-15
references: 21540743
references: Lancet. 2009 Jul 25;374(9686):301-14
references: 19586656
references: J Infect Dis. 2011 Aug 1;204(3):377-84
references: 21742836
references: Hum Vaccin. 2009 Oct;5(10):705-19
references: 19684472
references: Vaccine. 2009 Jul 30;27(35):4776-83
references: 19539578
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 May;29(5):371-86
references: 21504239
references: J Infect Dis. 2009 Apr 1;199(7):936-44
references: 19236277
references: Int J Cancer. 2000 Jul 15;87(2):221-7
references: 10861478
references: Lancet Infect Dis. 2008 Nov;8(11):727-33
references: 18992409
references: Sex Transm Dis. 2009 Aug;36(8):515-21
references: 19543143
references: Int J Cancer. 2009 Feb 15;124(4):970-8
references: 19035448
references: BMC Fam Pract. 2010 May 20;11:39
references: 20487552
references: Expert Rev Vaccines. 2012 May;11(5):543-6
references: 22827241
references: Lancet. 2007 Sep 8;370(9590):890-907
references: 17826171
references: Sex Transm Infect. 2008 Jun;84(3):161-6
references: 18339658
references: Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):622-31
references: 22867770
references: J Clin Virol. 2009 Feb;44(2):111-4
references: 19097933
references: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009 Oct;19(7):1166-76
references: 19823051
references: BMJ. 2011 Sep 27;343:d5775
references: 21951758
references: PLoS One. 2008;3(11):e3743
references: 19011683
references: BMC Infect Dis. 2009 Jul 29;9:119
references: 19640281
references: Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2007;28(3):165-9
references: 17624079