Optimal human papillomavirus vaccination strategies to prevent cervical cancer in low-income and middle-income countries in the context of limited resources: a mathematical modelling analysis.
Adolescent
Adult
Child
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Developing Countries
Female
Humans
Immunization Schedule
Male
Models, Biological
Papillomavirus Infections
/ prevention & control
Papillomavirus Vaccines
/ administration & dosage
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ prevention & control
Vaccination
Young Adult
Journal
The Lancet. Infectious diseases
ISSN: 1474-4457
Titre abrégé: Lancet Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101130150
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
received:
13
12
2019
revised:
23
10
2020
accepted:
27
10
2020
pubmed:
11
7
2021
medline:
31
12
2021
entrez:
10
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination has been slow in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of resource constraints and worldwide shortage of vaccine supplies. To help inform WHO recommendations, we modelled various HPV vaccination strategies to examine the optimal use of limited vaccine supplies and best allocation of scarce resources in LMICs in the context of the WHO global call to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. In this mathematical modelling analysis, we developed HPV-ADVISE LMIC, a transmission-dynamic model of HPV infection and diseases calibrated to four LMICs: India, Vietnam, Uganda, and Nigeria. For different vaccination strategies that encompassed use of a nine-valent vaccine (or a two-valent or four-valent vaccine assuming high cross-protection), we estimated three outcomes: reduction in the age-standardised rate of cervical cancer, number of doses needed to prevent one case of cervical cancer (NNV; as a measure of efficiency), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; in 2017 international $ per disability-adjusted life-year [DALY] averted). We examined different vaccination strategies by varying the ages of routine HPV vaccination and number of age cohorts vaccinated, the population targeted, and the number of doses used. In our base case, we assumed 100% lifetime protection against HPV-16, HPV-18, HPV-31, HPV-33, HPV-45, HPV-52, and HPV-58; vaccination coverage of 80%; and a time horizon of 100 years. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we used a 3% discount rate. Elimination of cervical cancer was defined as an age-standardised incidence of less than four cases per 100 000 woman-years. We predicted that HPV vaccination could lead to cervical cancer elimination in Vietnam, India, and Nigeria, but not in Uganda. Compared with no vaccination, strategies that involved vaccinating girls aged 9-14 years with two doses were predicted to be the most efficient and cost-effective in all four LMICs. NNV ranged from 78 to 381 and ICER ranged from $28 per DALY averted to $1406 per DALY averted depending on the country. The most efficient and cost-effective strategies were routine vaccination of girls aged 14 years, with or without a later switch to routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years, and routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years with a 5-year extended interval between doses and a catch-up programme at age 14 years. Vaccinating boys (aged 9-14 years) or women aged 18 years or older resulted in substantially higher NNVs and ICERs. We identified two strategies that could maximise efforts to prevent cervical cancer in LMICs given constraints on vaccine supplies and costs and that would allow a maximum of LMICs to introduce HPV vaccination. World Health Organization, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Compute Canada, PATH, and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination has been slow in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of resource constraints and worldwide shortage of vaccine supplies. To help inform WHO recommendations, we modelled various HPV vaccination strategies to examine the optimal use of limited vaccine supplies and best allocation of scarce resources in LMICs in the context of the WHO global call to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem.
METHODS
In this mathematical modelling analysis, we developed HPV-ADVISE LMIC, a transmission-dynamic model of HPV infection and diseases calibrated to four LMICs: India, Vietnam, Uganda, and Nigeria. For different vaccination strategies that encompassed use of a nine-valent vaccine (or a two-valent or four-valent vaccine assuming high cross-protection), we estimated three outcomes: reduction in the age-standardised rate of cervical cancer, number of doses needed to prevent one case of cervical cancer (NNV; as a measure of efficiency), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; in 2017 international $ per disability-adjusted life-year [DALY] averted). We examined different vaccination strategies by varying the ages of routine HPV vaccination and number of age cohorts vaccinated, the population targeted, and the number of doses used. In our base case, we assumed 100% lifetime protection against HPV-16, HPV-18, HPV-31, HPV-33, HPV-45, HPV-52, and HPV-58; vaccination coverage of 80%; and a time horizon of 100 years. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we used a 3% discount rate. Elimination of cervical cancer was defined as an age-standardised incidence of less than four cases per 100 000 woman-years.
FINDINGS
We predicted that HPV vaccination could lead to cervical cancer elimination in Vietnam, India, and Nigeria, but not in Uganda. Compared with no vaccination, strategies that involved vaccinating girls aged 9-14 years with two doses were predicted to be the most efficient and cost-effective in all four LMICs. NNV ranged from 78 to 381 and ICER ranged from $28 per DALY averted to $1406 per DALY averted depending on the country. The most efficient and cost-effective strategies were routine vaccination of girls aged 14 years, with or without a later switch to routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years, and routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years with a 5-year extended interval between doses and a catch-up programme at age 14 years. Vaccinating boys (aged 9-14 years) or women aged 18 years or older resulted in substantially higher NNVs and ICERs.
INTERPRETATION
We identified two strategies that could maximise efforts to prevent cervical cancer in LMICs given constraints on vaccine supplies and costs and that would allow a maximum of LMICs to introduce HPV vaccination.
FUNDING
World Health Organization, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Compute Canada, PATH, and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
TRANSLATIONS
For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34245682
pii: S1473-3099(20)30860-4
doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30860-4
pmc: PMC8554391
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Papillomavirus Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1598-1610Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R015600/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests.
Références
PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22704
pubmed: 21829486
Vaccine. 2017 Oct 13;35(43):5753-5755
pubmed: 28596091
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 Oct;12(10):781-9
pubmed: 22920953
Vaccine. 2013 Aug 20;31(37):3786-804
pubmed: 23830973
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Mar;20(3):319-321
pubmed: 30795952
Prev Med. 2021 Mar;144:106354
pubmed: 33309871
J Infect Dis. 2010 Dec 15;202(12):1789-99
pubmed: 21067372
BMC Public Health. 2011 Dec 29;11 Suppl 6:S13
pubmed: 22376218
Vaccine. 2009 Oct 9;27(43):6060-79
pubmed: 19647813
Prev Med. 2021 Mar;144:106399
pubmed: 33388322
Sex Transm Infect. 2006 Jun;82 Suppl 3:iii26-33
pubmed: 16735289
Vaccine. 2018 May 3;36(19):2529-2544
pubmed: 29625764
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012 Nov 21;104(22):1712-23
pubmed: 23104323
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jul;2(7):e406-14
pubmed: 25103394
J Infect Dis. 2016 Sep 1;214(5):685-8
pubmed: 27234416
AIDS Behav. 2009 Oct;13(5):881-91
pubmed: 18830814
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Mar;20(3):394-407
pubmed: 30795950
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019;15(7-8):1980-1985
pubmed: 31017850