Cited by 72Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeGenital Health and Disease

Health and economic benefits of single-dose HPV vaccination in a Gavi-eligible country

Open access
Burger, Emily A., Campos, Nicole G., Sy, Stephen, Regan, Catherine, Kim, Jane J.·2018·Vaccine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines for prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination recommend two doses for girls ages 9-14 years, several studies have demonstrated similar protection with one dose. Our objective was to evaluate the long-term health and economic impacts of routine one-dose HPV vaccination compared to (1) no vaccination and (2) two-dose HPV vaccination in a low-income country. METHODS: We used a three-tiered hybrid modeling approach that captured HPV transmission, cervical carcinogenesis, and population demographics to project long-term health and economic outcomes associated with one-dose HPV vaccination (assuming 80% efficacy against HPV-16/18 infections under three waning scenarios) and two-dose HPV vaccination (assuming 100% efficacy over the lifetime) in Uganda. Costs included the vaccine program (dosage and delivery) costs over a 10-year period and cervical cancer costs over the lifetimes of the current population of Ugandan women. Health outcomes included number of cervical cancer cases and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (i.e., cost per DALY averted) were calculated and compared against the Ugandan per-capita gross domestic product. RESULTS: Routine one-dose HPV vaccination of 9-year-old girls required substantial upfront investment but was cost-saving compared to no vaccination when accounting for the cost-offsets from future cancers averted. Forty years after initiating routine vaccination and depending on assumptions of vaccine waning, one-dose HPV vaccination with equivalent coverage (70%) averted 15-16% of cervical cancer cases versus 21% with two-dose vaccination but required only half the upfront economic investment. Vaccination with two doses had an attractive cost-effectiveness profile except if one-dose vaccination enabled higher coverage (90% vs. 70%) and did not wane. CONCLUSIONS: One-dose HPV vaccination resulted in cost-savings compared to no vaccination and could be cost-effective compared to two-dose vaccination if protection is longstanding and higher coverage can be achieved.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.04.061

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The study used a comparative modelling approach including three models that have been extensively peer reviewed and validated with post-vaccination surveillance data.

    “First, we used a comparative modelling approach including three models that have been extensively peer reviewed and validated with post-vaccination surveillance data.30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36”

    From Impact of HPV vaccination and cervical screening on cervical cancer elimination: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries (2020) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Methods (Analytic overview; page unavailable) describe a three-tiered approach linking Harvard-HPV, Harvard-CC, and Harvard-Scale Up. The paper does not say that these three models were extensively peer reviewed or validated against post-vaccination surveillance data; the Methods (Simulation models; page unavailable) describe calibration to Ugandan epidemiological outcomes, which is not the same claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [14]Forman D. Bray F. Brewster D. Gombe Mbalawa C. Kohler B. Piñeros M. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents Vol IX 2013 International Agency for Research on Cancer Lyon, France 26135522

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burger, E. A., Campos, N. G., Sy, S., Regan, C., & Kim, J. J.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Burger, Emily A.
Venue
Vaccine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
36
Issue
32
Pages
4823-4829
ISSN
0264-410X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2803487478
Cited by
72
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3
FWCI
5.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Vaccine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Genital Health and Disease
Keywords
HPV vaccination, single-dose vaccination, two-dose vaccination, cervical cancer prevention, vaccine waning, cost-effectiveness, disability-adjusted life years, low-income countries, Uganda, HPV 16/18, cervical carcinogenesis
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Child, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Humans, Immunization Schedule, Uganda, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Papillomavirus Infections, Mass Vaccination, Human papillomavirus 18, Human papillomavirus 16, Papillomavirus Vaccines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review