The cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in the Philippines. Issue 27 (15th June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Llave, Cecilia L.; Uy, Maria Esterlita V.; Lam, Hilton Y.; Aldaba, Josephine G.; Yacapin, Clarence C.; Miranda, Michelle B.; Valverde, Haidee A.; Silva, Wilda T.; Nawaz, Saira; Slavkovsky, Rose C.; Mooney, Jessica; Vodicka, Elisabeth L.
• Is Part Of: Vaccine. Volume 40:Issue 27(2022)
• Page Start: 3802
• Page End: 3811
• Publication Date: 2022-06-15
• Subjects: Cost-effectiveness -- Cervical cancer -- Human papillomavirus -- HPV vaccination -- Philippines; Vaccines -- Periodicals; 615.372
• DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.05.025
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0264-410X

Abstract

Abstract: Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women in the Philippines. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination provides protection from the most common cancer-causing HPV types. This analysis used a proportionate outcomes model to estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of four different HPV vaccine products—Cervarix™, Cecolin®, GARDASIL®, and GARDASIL®9—for routine HPV vaccination of 10 cohorts of 9-year-old girls from the government and societal perspectives. Model parameters included cervical cancer burden, healthcare and program costs, vaccine efficacy with and without potential cross-protection, and vaccination coverage. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of uncertainty on model results. Compared to no vaccination, HPV programs with Cecolin®, Cervarix™, and GARDASIL® are projected to be cost-effective at US$1, 210, US$1, 300, and US$2, 043 per DALY averted, respectively, from the government perspective, and at US$173, US$263, and US$1, 006 per DALY averted, respectively, from the societal perspective when cross-protection was considered. When direct comparisons were made across vaccines, GARDASIL® was dominated by Cervarix™ and Cecolin®. In a scenario where cross-protection was not considered, results were similar except that Cervarix™ and GARDASIL® were both dominated by Cecolin®. GARDASIL®9 was not cost-effective under any of the modeled scenarios.