Journal of Public Health

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 77–86 | Cite as

Cost-effectiveness of a tetravalent human papillomavirus vaccine in Germany

  • Peter Hillemanns
  • Karl Ulrich Petry
  • Nathalie Largeron
  • Ruth McAllister
  • Keith Tolley
  • Katharina Büsch
Original Article

Abstract

Aim

Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of the tetravalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in the prevention of cervical cancer and genital warts associated with HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18. We used an empirically calibrated Markov cohort model of the natural history of HPV to assess the cost-effectiveness of the vaccine administered to 12-year-old girls alongside existing cervical screening programmes in Germany.

Subjects and methods

The model estimated cervical cancer (CC), cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and genital wart lifetime risks and total lifetime health care costs, life years gained and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the German health care payer.

Results

In the base case (considering a lifetime duration of protection and 100% efficacy) it was estimated that 2,835 cervical cancer cases and 679 deaths could be prevented among a cohort of 400,000, at an incremental cost per QALY gained of 10,530 €. A total of 120 girls needed to be vaccinated to prevent 1 case of CC. Cost-effectiveness is sensitive to a duration of protection of less than 20 years and to the discount rate for costs and benefits.

Conclusion

A policy of vaccinating adolescent girls has been recommended by the German Standing Committee on Vaccinations. This study has demonstrated that such a policy is cost-effective based on thresholds of cost-effectiveness that apply in Germany.

Keywords

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Cost-effectiveness Germany 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The decision to submit this manuscript for publication was taken collectively by all of the authors.

Funding

This study was conducted with the financial support of Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Lyon, France.

Conflict of interest statement

PH and KUP declared that they have received honoraria from Sanofi Pasteur MSD and/or GSK for speaking at several scientific meetings and for acting as scientific consultant. NL is an employee of Sanofi Pasteur MSD, who commercializes Gardasil® in Europe. KB previously worked for Sanofi Pasteur MSD. RMA and KT previously worked for Mapi Values who were contracted by Sanofi Pasteur MSD to conduct the analysis and to write a previous version of this manuscript.

References

  1. Anttila A, Jordan J (2004) Epidemiological guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. In: European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening, pp 1–70Google Scholar
  2. Bergeron C, Largeron N, McAllister R, Mathevet P, Remy V (2008) Cost-effectiveness analysis of the introduction of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24:10–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bischoff-Everding CH, Reimers W, Hopfenmüller W, Kühn W (2006) Kosten-Nutzen-Effektivitätsanalysen des zytologischen Zervixkarzinomscreenings mittels Markov-Analysen (abstract). 56. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, 2006Google Scholar
  4. Bollmann R, Bankfalvi A, Griefingholt H, Trosic A, Speich N, Schmitt C, Bollmann M (2005) Validity of combined cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping with adjuvant DNA-cytometry in routine cervical screening: results from 31031 women from the Bonn-region in West Germany. Oncol Rep 13:915–922PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brisson M, Van de Velde N, De Wals P, Boily MC (2007a) Estimating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent diseases and death related to human papillomavirus infection. CMAJ 177:464–468PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brisson M, Van de Velde N, De Wals P, Boily MC (2007b) The potential cost-effectiveness of prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccines in Canada. Vaccine 25:5399–5408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown D (2007) HPV type 6/11/16/18 vaccine: first analysis of cross-protection against persistent infection, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) caused by oncogenic HPV types in addition to 16/18 (abstract G-1720b). 47th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Chicago, 17–20 September 2007Google Scholar
  8. Canfell K, Barnabas R, Patnick J, Beral V (2004) The predicted effect of changes in cervical screening practice in the UK: results from a modelling study. Br J Cancer 91:530–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chesson HW, Ekwueme D, Sasieni P, Markowitz E (2008) Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis 14:244–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clifford GM, Smith JS, Aguado T, Franceschi S (2003) Comparison of HPV type distribution in high-grade cervical lesions and cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 89:101–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clifford GM, Rana RK, Franceschi S, Smith JS, Gough G, Pimenta JM (2005) Human papillomavirus genotype distribution in low-grade cervical lesions: comparison by geographic region and with cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14:1157–1164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crott R (2007) Economic analysis of HPV-vaccines: not so simple? Vaccine 25:7717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dasbach EJ, Elbasha EH, Insinga RP (2006) Mathematical models for predicting the epidemiologic and economic impact of vaccination against human papillomavirus infection and disease. Epidemiol Rev 28:88–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dasbach EJ, Insinga RP, Elbasha EH (2008) The epidemiological and economic impact of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (6/11/16/18) in the UK. BJOG 115:947–956PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dutch Health Care Insurance Board (2005) Richtlijnen voor farmaco-economisch onderzoek; evaluatie en actualisatie College voor zorgverzekeringen http://www.cvz.nl/resources/rpt0510_richtlijnen_FEO_tcm28–17860.pdf. 27 Oct 2005
  16. European Commission (2002) Percentage of women reporting specific preventive examinations. Eurobarometer 43.0 and 59.0Google Scholar
  17. Federal Statistical Office Germany Statistics (2004) Population: births and deaths. http://www.destatis.de/presse/deutsch/cal_2004.htm#Explanatory%20note.website. 29 Dec 2004
  18. Garland SM, Hernandez-Avila M, Wheeler CM, Perez G, Harper DM, Leodolter S et al (2007) Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent anogenital diseases. N Engl J Med 356:1928–1943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, Weinstein MC, Wright TC, Bosch FX, Franco E (2004) Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:604–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hillemanns P, Breugelmans G, Gieseking F, Bénard S, Lamure E, Littlewood KJ, Petry KU (2008) Estimation of the incidence of genital warts and the cost of illness in Germany: a cross-sectional study. BMC Infect Dis 8:76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jit M, Choi YH, Edmunds WJ (2008) Economic evaluation of human papillomavirus vaccination in the United Kingdom. BMJ 337:a769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, Chilcott J, McGoogan E, Brewer N (2004) Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 8:iii1–iii78Google Scholar
  23. Krebsregister, Saarland (2003) Annual report of the epidemiological cancer register Saarland for the diagnostic years 1998 to 2000. http://www.krebsregister.saarland.de/. 1 Jul 2003
  24. Kulasingam SL, Benard S, Barnabas R, Largeron N, Myers ER (2008) Adding a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine to the UK cervical cancer screening programme: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 6:4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lacey C (2008) Continued efficacy of quadrivalent HPV (types 6/11/16/18) L1 VLP vaccine in preventing cervical or external genital disease: 4 years of follow-up. 20th European College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lisbon, 4–8 March 2008Google Scholar
  26. Mitchell MF, Schottenfeld D, Tortolero-Luna G, Cantor SB, Richards-Kortum R (1998) Colposcopy for the diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 91:626–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mittendorf T, Petry KU, Iftner T, Greiner W, von der Schulenburg JM (2003) Economic evaluation of human papillomavirus screening in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 4:209–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Muñoz N, Castellsagué X, de González AB, Gissmann L (2006) Chapter 1: HPV in the etiology of human cancer. Vaccine 24(Suppl 3):S3/1–S3/10Google Scholar
  29. Myers ER, Green S, Lipkus I (2004) Patient preferences for health states related to HPV infection: visual analogue scales vs time trade-off elicitation. Proceedings of the 21st International Papillomavirus Conference, Mexico City, 20–26 February 2004Google Scholar
  30. Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, Bastian L, Matchar DB (2000) Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol 151:1158–1171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Olsson SE, Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA, Andrade RP, Malm C et al (2007) Induction of immune memory following administration of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6/11/16/18 L1 virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine. Vaccine 25:4931–4939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paavonen J, Jenkins D, Bosch F, Naud P, Salmeron J, Wheeler C, Chow S, Apter D, Kitchener H, Castellsague X, de Carvalho N, Skinner S, Harper D, Hedrick J, Jaisamrarn U, Limson G, Dionne M, Quint W, Spiessens B, Peeters P, Struyf F, Wieting S, Lehtinen M, Dubin M, HPV PATRICIA study group (2007) Efficacy of a prophylactic adjuvanted bivalent L1 virus-like-particle vaccine against infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: an interim analysis of a phase III double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 369:2161–2170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Petry KU, Menton S, Menton M, van Loenen-Frosch F, de Carvalho GH, Holz B et al (2003) Inclusion of HPV testing in routine cervical cancer screening for women above 29 years in Germany: results for 8466 patients. Br J Cancer 88:1570–1577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Petry KU, Breugelmans G, Bénard S, Lamure E, Littlewood KJ, Hillemanns P (2008) Cost of screening and treatment of cervical dyskaryosis in Germany. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 29:345–349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Robert Koch Institute (2007) Statement by the standing committee on vaccinations (STIKO) at the Robert Koch Institute: vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV) for girls of 12 to 17 years of age—recommendation and explanatory statement. Epidemiology Bulletin 98–103Google Scholar
  36. Robert Koch-Institut (2008) Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e. V. (ed): Krebs in Deutschland 2003–2004. Häufigkeiten und Trends, 6th edn. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. Schenck U, Soost HJ (1995) In Referatband der 13. Fortbildungstagung für klinische Zytologie. Befundwiedergabe in der Zytologie: Münchner Nomenklatur II und Bethesda System 1991. Märkl-Druck, Munich, pp 224–233Google Scholar
  38. Schenck U, von Karsa L (2000) Cervical cancer screening in Germany. Eur J Cancer 36:2221–2226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sheriff SK, Petry KU, Ikenberg H, Crouse G, Mazonson PD, Santas CC (2007) An economic analysis of human papillomavirus triage for the management of women with atypical and abnormal Pap smear results in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 8:153–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Siebert U, Muth C, Sroczynski G, Velasco-Garrido M, Gerhardus A, Gibis B (2004) Institute for Technology Assessment. Liquid-based preparation and computer-assisted examination of cervical smears. Clinical effectiveness, economic evaluation and systematic decision analysis. Health Technology Assessment Vol 35. 1–444. Series of the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Security. Asgard, St. AugustinGoogle Scholar
  41. Siebert U, Sroczynski G, Hillemanns P, Engel J, Stabenow R, Stegmaier C et al (2006) The German cervical cancer screening model: development and validation of a decision-analytic model for cervical cancer screening in Germany. Eur J Public Health 16:185–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. FUTURE II Study Group (2007) Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions. N Engl J Med 356:1915–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. von Krogh G (2001) Management of anogenital warts (condylomata acuminata). Eur J Dermatol 11:598–603Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Hillemanns
    • 1
  • Karl Ulrich Petry
    • 2
  • Nathalie Largeron
    • 3
  • Ruth McAllister
    • 4
  • Keith Tolley
    • 4
  • Katharina Büsch
    • 5
  1. 1.Medizinische Hochschule HannoverHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Frauenklinik im Klinikum der Stadt WolfsburgWolfsburgGermany
  3. 3.Sanofi Pasteur MSDLyonFrance
  4. 4.Mapi ValuesBollingtonUK
  5. 5.Sanofi Pasteur MSDLeimenGermany

Personalised recommendations