Cost-effectiveness of female human papillomavirus vaccination in 179 countries: a PRIME modelling study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in settings with the highest burden of HPV is not universal, partly because of the absence of quantitative estimates of country-specific effects on health and economic costs. We aimed to develop and validate a simple generic model of such effects that could be used and understood in a range of settings with little external support. METHODS: We developed the Papillomavirus Rapid Interface for Modelling and Economics (PRIME) model to assess cost-effectiveness and health effects of vaccination of girls against HPV before sexual debut in terms of burden of cervical cancer and mortality. PRIME models incidence according to proposed vaccine efficacy against HPV 16/18, vaccine coverage, cervical cancer incidence and mortality, and HPV type distribution. It assumes lifelong vaccine protection and no changes to other screening programmes or vaccine uptake. We validated PRIME against existing reports of HPV vaccination cost-effectiveness, projected outcomes for 179 countries (assuming full vaccination of 12-year-old girls), and outcomes for 71 phase 2 GAVI-eligible countries (using vaccine uptake data from the GAVI Alliance). We assessed differences between countries in terms of cost-effectiveness and health effects. FINDINGS: In validation, PRIME reproduced cost-effectiveness conclusions for 24 of 26 countries from 17 published studies, and for all 72 countries in a published study of GAVI-eligible countries. Vaccination of a cohort of 58 million 12-year-old girls in 179 countries prevented 690,000 cases of cervical cancer and 420,000 deaths during their lifetime (mostly in low-income or middle-income countries), at a net cost of US$4 billion. HPV vaccination was very cost effective (with every disability-adjusted life-year averted costing less than the gross domestic product per head) in 156 (87%) of 179 countries. Introduction of the vaccine in countries without national HPV vaccination at present would prevent substantially more cases of cervical cancer than in countries with such programmes, although the disparity has narrowed since 2012. If 71 phase 2 GAVI-eligible countries adopt vaccination according to forecasts, then in 2070 GAVI Alliance-funded vaccination could prevent 200,000 cases of cervical cancer and 100,000 deaths in some of the highest-burden countries. INTERPRETATION: Large between-country disparities exist for HPV vaccination, with countries with the most to gain yet to introduce national HPV vaccination. Support from the GAVI Alliance could help to reduce such disparities, but a substantial burden will remain even after presently projected vaccine introductions. FUNDING: WHO.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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 31 · Cited by 261
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- No authors listed. Human papillomavirus vaccines. WHO position paper. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2009; 84: 118-31.
- Dorleans F, Giambi C, Dematte L, et al. The current state of introduction of human papillomavirus vaccination into national immunisation schedules in Europe: fi rst results of the VENICE2 2010 survey. Euro Surveill 2010; 15: 19730.
- Jit M, Levin C, Brison M, et al. Economic analyses to support decisions about HPV vaccination in low-and middle-income countries: a consensus report and guide for analysts. BMC Med 2013; 11: 23.
- GAVI Alliance. GAVI funds vaccines to protect girls against cervical cancer. http://www.gavialliance.org/library/news/press- releases/2013/gavi-funds-vaccines-to-protect-girls-against-cervical- cancer/ (accessed Feb 10, 2013).
- Andrus JK, Toscano CM, Lewis M, et al. A model for enhancing evidence-based capacity to make informed policy decisions on the introduction of new vaccines in the Americas: PAHO's ProVac initiative. Public Health Rep 2007; 122: 811-16.
- Brisson M, Van de Velde N, V, Boily MC. Economic evaluation of human papillomavirus vaccination in developed countries. Public Health Genomics 2009; 12: 343-51.
- Kim JJ, Brisson M, Edmunds WJ, Goldie SJ. Modeling cervical cancer prevention in developed countries. Vaccine 2008; 26: K76-86.
- Bonanni P, Boccalini S, Bechini A. Effi cacy, duration of immunity and cross protection after HPV vaccination: a review of the evidence. Vaccine 2009; 27: A46-53.
- Goldie SJ, O'Shea M, Campos NG, Diaz M, Sweet S, Kim SY. Health and economic outcomes of HPV 16,18 vaccination in 72 GAVI-eligible countries. Vaccine 2008; 26: 4080-93.
- Quinn MA, Benedet JL, Odicino F, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix uteri. FIGO 26th annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006; 95: S43-103.
- Ginsberg GM, Edejer TT, Lauer JA, Sepulveda C. Screening, prevention and treatment of cervical cancer-a global and regional generalized cost-eff ectiveness analysis. Vaccine 2009; 27: 6060-79.
- Li N, Franceschi S, Howell-Jones R, Snijders PJ, Cliff ord GM. Human papillomavirus type distribution in 30,848 invasive cervical cancers worldwide: variation by geographical region, histological type and year of publication. Int J Cancer 2011; 128: 927-35.
- Markowitz LE, Tsu V, Deeks SL, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccine introduction-the fi rst fi ve years. Vaccine 2012; 30: F139-48.
- Marra F, Cloutier K, Oteng B, Marra C, Ogilvie G. Eff ectiveness and cost eff ectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccine: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27: 127-47.
- Seto K, Marra F, Raymakers A, Marra CA. The cost eff ectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccines: a systematic review. Drugs 2012; 72: 715-43.
- Koleva D, De Compadri P, Padula A, Garattini L. Economic evaluation of human papilloma virus vaccination in the European Union: a critical review. Intern Emerg Med 2011; 6: 163-74.
- Van Kriekinge G, Castellsague X, Cibula D, Demarteau N. Estimation of the potential overall impact of human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical cancer cases and deaths. Vaccine 2014; 32: 733-39.
- Kim JJ, Campos NG, O'Shea M, Diaz M, Mutyaba I. Model-based impact and cost-eff ectiveness of cervical cancer prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. Vaccine 2013; 31: F60-72.
- Kim JJ, Sharma M, O'Shea M, et al. Model-based impact and cost-eff ectiveness of cervical cancer prevention in the Extended Middle East and North Africa (EMENA). Vaccine 2013; 31: G65-77.
- Berkhof J, Bogaards JA, Demirel E, Diaz M, Sharma M, Kim JJ. Cost-eff ectiveness of cervical cancer prevention in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Vaccine 2013; 31: H71-79.
- Broutet N. Comprehensive cervical cancer control: strategies and guidelines. Epidemiologic studies in cancer prevention and screening. Springer; 2013: 209-21.
- Authors
- Jit, M., Brisson, M., Portnoy, A., & Hutubessy, R.
- Affiliations
- Public Health England (GB)
- Université Laval (CA)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- World Health Organization (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Hutubessy, Raymond
- Venue
- The Lancet Global Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-07
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e406-e414
- ISSN
- 2214-109X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2110959817
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 19.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet Global Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bushehr University of Medical Sciences Repository (Bushehr University of Medical Sciences) (acceptedVersion)
- LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
- LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- GAVI Alliance
- World Health Organization
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (HPRU-2012-10080)
- 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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
- Keywords
- HPV vaccination, cost-effectiveness, cervical cancer prevention, prime models, HPV-16/18 vaccine, vaccination coverage, disability-adjusted life years, low- and middle-income countries, cervical cancer mortality, vaccine uptake, global health disparities, model validation, cervical cancer screening
- MeSH terms
- Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Child, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Global Health, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome, Immunization Programs, Models, Economic, Papillomavirus Infections, Internationality, 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