Cited by 99Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementGenital Health and Disease

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

Open access
Drolet, Mélanie, Laprise, Jean-François, Martin, Dave, Jit, Mark, Bénard, Élodie, Gingras, Guillaume, Boily, Marie-Claude, Alary, Michel +3 more·2021·The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Abstract

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.

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/s1473-3099(20)30860-4

Cites

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 finding that single-dose HPV vaccination with catch-up is cost-effective is consistent with a previous multi-country modelling study in low-income and middle-income settings including India.

    “This finding is consistent with a previous multi-country modelling study on low-income and middle-income settings, including India.”

    From Evidence-based impact projections of single-dose human papillomavirus vaccination in India: a modelling study (2022) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Methods (Study design and countries; page unavailable) identify a four-country modelling study that includes India. The Results (page unavailable) say one-dose vaccination of girls aged 9–14 years was cost-effective compared with no vaccination, but the explicitly described catch-up strategy used a five-year interval between two doses. The paper does not directly establish that a single-dose programme with catch-up is cost-effective without qualifications about one-dose protection. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Our projections support previous modelling studies that found high coverage HPV16/18 vaccination in girls aged 10 years could considerably reduce cervical cancer burden in India and enable reaching the WHO elimination target even with single-dose vaccination.

    “Our projections also support previous modelling studies2, 31, 32 that found high coverage of vaccination against HPV16 and HPV18 in girls aged 10 years could reduce the burden of cervical cancer in India considerably, and enable the country to reach the WHO elimination target even with single-dose vaccination.”

    From Evidence-based impact projections of single-dose human papillomavirus vaccination in India: a modelling study (2022) · cites this paper as [31]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Using GLOBOCAN baseline estimates would make reaching the WHO elimination threshold more difficult but still possible under high vaccine coverage and efficacy.

    “Using GLOBOCAN estimates would make reaching the WHO elimination threshold more difficult, but should still be possible under high vaccine coverage and efficacy.2, 31”

    From Evidence-based impact projections of single-dose human papillomavirus vaccination in India: a modelling study (2022) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Methods (Analysis; page unavailable) say the model predictions were fitted to GLOBOCAN 2020 cervical-cancer incidence estimates, and the Findings report that vaccination could achieve elimination in Vietnam, India, and Nigeria, but not Uganda. The paper does not establish the claimed comparison that using GLOBOCAN estimates would make elimination more difficult, or show that high vaccine coverage and efficacy would make it possible across settings; its Discussion says countries with incidence like Uganda’s would likely also need screening. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 20 · Cited by 99

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. [1]Sung H Ferlay J Siegel RL Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J Clin 71 2021 209 249 33538338
  2. [3]Bruni L Saura-Làzaro A Montoliu A HPV vaccination introduction worldwide and WHO and UNICEF estimates of national HPV immunization coverage 2010–2019 Prev Med 144 2021 106399 33388322
  3. [5]Ng SS Hutubessy R Chaiyakunapruk N Systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination: 9-valent vaccine, gender-neutral and multiple age cohort vaccination Vaccine 36 2018 2529 2544 29625764
  4. [8]Jit M Brisson M Portnoy A Hutubessy R Cost-effectiveness of female human papillomavirus vaccination in 179 countries: a PRIME modelling study Lancet Glob Health 2 2014 e406 e414 25103394
  5. [11]Bruni L Diaz M Castellsagué X Ferrer E Bosch FX de Sanjosé S Cervical human papillomavirus prevalence in 5 continents: meta-analysis of 1 million women with normal cytological findings J Infect Dis 202 2010 1789 1799 21067372
  6. [14]WHO Human papillomavirus vaccines: WHO position paper, May 2017-recommendations Vaccine 35 2017 5753 5755 28596091
  7. [15]Van de Velde N Boily MC Drolet M Population-level impact of the bivalent, quadrivalent, and nonavalent human papillomavirus vaccines: a model-based analysis J Natl Cancer Inst 104 2012 1712 1723 23104323
  8. [16]Laprise JF Markowitz LE Chesson HW Drolet M Brisson M Comparison of 2-dose and 3-dose 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine schedules in the United States: a cost-effectiveness analysis J Infect Dis 214 2016 685 688 27234416 PMC4978371
  9. [17]Carael M Slaymaker E Lyerla R Sarkar S Clients of sex workers in different regions of the world: hard to count Sex Transm Infect 82 suppl 3 2006 iii26 iii33 16735289 PMC2576731
  10. [18]Gaffey MF Venkatesh S Dhingra N Male use of female sex work in India: a nationally representative behavioural survey PLoS One 6 2011 e22704 PMC3146473 21829486
  11. [19]Nguyen NT Nguyen HT Trinh HQ Mills SJ Detels R Clients of female sex workers as a bridging population in Vietnam AIDS Behav 13 2009 881 891 18830814 PMC2903541
  12. [20]Jit M Prem K Benard E Brisson M From cervical cancer elimination to eradication of vaccine-type human papillomavirus: feasibility, public health strategies and cost-effectiveness Prev Med 144 2021 106354 PMC7957342 33309871
  13. [26]Malagón T Drolet M Boily MC Cross-protective efficacy of two human papillomavirus vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis Lancet Infect Dis 12 2012 781 789 22920953
  14. [28]Ginsberg GM Edejer TT Lauer JA Sepulveda C Screening, prevention and treatment of cervical cancer—a global and regional generalized cost-effectiveness analysis Vaccine 27 2009 6060 6079 19647813
  15. [33]Simms KT Steinberg J Caruana M Impact of scaled up human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical screening and the potential for global elimination of cervical cancer in 181 countries, 2020–99: a modelling study Lancet Oncol 20 2019 394 407 30795950
  16. [37]Banandur P Rajaram SP Mahagaonkar SB Heterogeneity of the HIV epidemic in the general population of Karnataka state, south India BMC Public Health 11 suppl 6 2011 S13 PMC3287551 22376218
  17. [39]Single-dose HPV vaccine evaluation consortium Review of the current published evidence for single-dose HPV vaccination https://path.azureedge.net/media/documents/SDHPV_Evidence_Review_Edition_3_Final_Fin3p80.pdf 2018
  18. [40]Gilca V Sauvageau C Panicker G Long intervals between two doses of HPV vaccines and magnitude of the immune response: a post hoc analysis of two clinical trials Hum Vaccin Immunother 15 2019 1980 1985 31017850 PMC6746485

Authors
Drolet, M., Laprise, J.-F., Martin, D., Jit, M., Bénard, É., Gingras, G., Boily, M.-C., Alary, M., Baussano, I., Hutubessy, R., & Brisson, M.
Affiliations
  • Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval (CA)
  • Public Health England (GB)
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec (CA)
  • Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (FR)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
Corresponding author
Brisson, Marc
Venue
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
21
Issue
11
Pages
1598-1610
ISSN
1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3182032062
Cited by
99
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 2
FWCI
10.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Compute Canada
  • Department for International Development, UK Government (MR/R015600/1)
  • WHO
  • PATH
  • Medical Research Council
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (FDN-143283)
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP48979)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Genital Health and Disease
Keywords
HPV vaccination, cervical cancer prevention, low- and middle-income countries, 9-valent HPV vaccine, cost-effectiveness, vaccine allocation, number needed to vaccinate, cervical cancer elimination, HPV transmission dynamics, vaccine supply constraints, WHO guidelines, disability-adjusted life years, India, Vietnam, Uganda, Nigeria, cross-protection, vaccine hesitancy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Child, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Developing Countries, Female, Humans, Immunization Schedule, Male, Models, Biological, Vaccination, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Papillomavirus Infections, Papillomavirus Vaccines, Young Adult

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