PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 231–245

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of a Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in Belgium

  • Lieven Annemans
  • Vanessa Rémy
  • James Oyee
  • Nathalie Largeron
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background: The introduction of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV; types 6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine is expected to significantly reduce the burden of cervical cancer, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), genital warts and other HPV-related diseases.

Objective: To determine the cost effectiveness of providing a quadrivalent (6,11,16,18) HPV vaccine programme in adolescent females aged 12 years in addition to the existing cervical cancer screening programme in Belgium.

Methods: A Markov state-transition model was developed for the Belgian context in order to evaluate the long-term impact of vaccinating a cohort of girls aged 12 years alongside the existing screening programme. Women were followed until the age of 85 years. A vaccine that would prevent 100% of diseases associated with HPV-6, -11, -16 and -18, with lifetime duration of efficacy, 80% coverage, in conjunction with current screening, was compared with screening alone. For this analysis, 35% of cases of CIN-1, 55% of CIN-2/3, 75% of cervical cancer and 90% of genital warts were considered to be attributable to HPV-6, -11, -16 or -18. The model estimated lifetime risks and total lifetime healthcare costs, survival and QALYs for cervical cancer, CIN and genital warts. Outcomes validation was applied. Model outcomes also included incremental costs per life-year gained and incremental costs per QALY gained. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Belgian healthcare payer, and costs were in year 2006 values.

Results: The model estimated a reduction in the lifetime risk of cervical cancer from 0.94% to 0.34%, therefore preventing 362 cases of cervical cancer and 131 related deaths in a cohort of 60 000 girls aged 12 years in Belgium. The base-case scenario suggests quadrivalent HPV vaccination in addition to current cervical screening in Belgium to be cost effective at €10 546 per QALY. This is within the accepted range of cost-effective interventions in Europe. This cost effectiveness is maintained for different parameter assumptions in the sensitivity analysis, with the exception of very high discount rates for costs and medical benefits, but, even in the worst case, ratios were still less than €50 000 per QALY. Even when a separate scenario modelled the requirement for a booster vaccination to sustain a lifetime duration of protection, the results remained cost effective at €17 388 per QALY.

Conclusions: Vaccination with a quadrivalent HPVvaccine appears to be a costeffective public health intervention in conjunction with the existing screening programme in Belgium. The additional costs of introducing vaccination to the established screening programme would be offset by the potential savings from not having to treat the diseases caused by HPV-6, -11, -16 or -18.

References

  1. 1.
    Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, et al. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet 2007; 370 (9590): 890–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belgian Cancer Registry. Annual statistics since 1999: 2003-F-BEL-Lft [online]. Available from URL: http://www.registreducancer.org [Accessed 2007 Sep 5]
  3. 3.
    Smith JS, Lindsay L, Hoots B, et al. Human papillomavirus type distribution in invasive cervical cancer and high-grade cervical lesions: a meta-analysis update. Int J Cancer 2007; 121 (3): 621–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koutsky L. Epidemiology of genital human papillomavirus infection. Am J Med 1997; 102 (5A): 3–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    WHO/ICO Information Centre on HPV and Cervical Cancer (HPV Information Centre). Summary report on HPV and cervical cancer statistics in Belgium: 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who.int/hpvcentre [Accessed 2007 Sep 4]
  6. 6.
    Beutner KR, Wiley DR. Recurrent external genital warts: a literature review. Papillomavirus Rep 1997; 8: 69–74Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McMillan A. The management of difficult anogenital warts. Sex Transm Dis 1999; 75: 192–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Family Planning Association (FPA). Factsheet on sexually transmitted infections, August 2007: genital warts [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fpa.org.uk/information/factsheets [Accessed 2007 Oct 1]
  9. 9.
    Bray F, Sankila R, Ferlay J, et al. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 1995. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38 (1): 99–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arbyn M, Van Oyen H. Analysis of individual health insurance data pertaining to pap smears, colposcopies, biopsies and surgery on the uterine cervix (Belgium, 1996–2000). [SIPH/EPI reports N 2004–021]. Brussels: Scientific Institute of Public Health, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.iph.fgov.be/epidemio/epien/cervixen/intermut.pdf [Accessed 2009 Feb 16]
  11. 11.
    Thiry N, Lambert ML, Cleemput I, et al. Vaccination HPV pour la prévention du cancer du col de l’utérus en Belgique. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) [KCE reports 64B]. Bruxelles: Centre Fédéral d’Expertise des Soins de Santé (KCE), 2007Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Medicines Agency (EMEA). Gardasil European public assessment report (EPAR) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/gardasil [Accessed 2007 Sep 5]
  13. 13.
    The FUTURE II Study Group. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (19): 1915–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garland SM, Hernandez-Avila M, Wheeler CM, et al. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent anogenital diseases. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (19): 1928–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joura EA, Leodolter S, Hernandez-Avila M, et al. Efficacy of a quadrivalent prophylactic human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like-particle vaccine against high-grade vulval and vaginal lesions: a combined analysis of three randomised clinical trials. Lancet 2007; 369 (9574): 1693–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kulasingam SL, Myers ER. Potential health and economic impact of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to screening programs. JAMA 2003; 290 (6): 781–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, et al. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 151 (12): 1158–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bergeron C, Largeron N, McAllister R, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the introduction of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24 (1): 10–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kulasingam SL, Benard S, Barnabas RV, et al. Adding a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine to the UK cervical cancer screening programme: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2008; 6: 4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices – modeling studies. Value Health 2003; 6 (1): 9–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cleemput I, Van Wilder P, Vrijens F, et al. Recommandations pour les évaluations pharmacoéconomiques en Belgique. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) [KCE reports 38B]. Bruxelles: Centre fédéral d’expertise des soins de santé (KCE), 2008Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brisson M, Van de Velde N, De Wals P, et al. Estimating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent diseases and death related to human papillomavirus infection. CMAJ 2007; 177 (5): 464–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Canfell K, Barnabas R, Patnick J, et al. The predicted effect of changes in cervical screening practice in the UK: results from a modelling study. Br J Cancer 2004; 91 (3): 530–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Siebert U, Sroczynski G, Hillemanns P, et al. The German cervical cancer screening model: development and validation of a decision-analytic model for cervical cancer screening in Germany. Eur J Public Health 2006; 16 (2): 185–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cancer Research UK. Cervical cancer statistics for the UK: 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/cervix/?a=5441 [Accessed 2007 Sep 5]
  26. 26.
    Flemish Cancer Registry Network. Cancer incidence and survival in Flanders 2000–2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.tegenkanker.net/uploadedfiles/Kankerregistratie/Kankerincidentie/2000–2001 [Accessed 2007 Sep 5]
  27. 27.
    WHO. WHO Statistical Information System 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who.int/whosis/en/index.html [Accessed 2007 Sep 5]
  28. 28.
    Arbyn M, Van Oyen H. SFTFMG: description of the influence of age, period and cohort effects on cervical cancer mortality by loglinear poisson models (Belgium, 1955–94). Arch Public Health 2002; 60 (2): 73–100Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    De Schrijver K. Epidemiologie van seksueel overdraagbare ziekten in België. Epidemiologisch bulletin van de Vlaamse gemeenschap 2003; 45 (3) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.zorg-en-gezondheid.be/defaultSubsite.aspx?id=9936 [Accessed 2009 Feb 16]
  30. 30.
    Monsonégo J, Breugelmans JG, Bouée S, et al. Anogenital warts incidence, medical management and costs in women consulting gynaecologists in France [in French]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2007; 35 (2): 107–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Belgian Society of Clinical Cytology. Belcyto 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.belcyto.ulg.ac.be/ [Accessed 2007 Sep 7]
  32. 32.
    Arbyn M, De Cock R, et al. A technical guideline: collection of adequate pap smears of the uterine cervix. Brussels: Flemish Steering Group on Cervical Cancer Screening, Ministry of the Flemish Community Department of Public Health, 2001Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mitchell MF, Schottenfeld D, Tortolero-Luna G, et al. Colposcopy for the diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91 (4): 626–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    ANAES. Recommandations pour la practice clinique: conduite à tenir devant une patiente ayant un frottis cervico-utérin anormal 1998 et Actualisation 2002 Sep [online]. Available from URL: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_469254/conduite-a-tenir-devant-un-frottis-anormal-du-col-de-l-uterus [Accessed 2009 Feb 16]
  35. 35.
    Arbyn M, Buntinx F, Van Ranst M, et al. Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96 (4): 280–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, et al. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8 (20): iii, 1–78Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Clifford GM, Smith JS, Aguado T, et al. Comparison of HPV type distribution in high-grade cervical lesions and cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2003; 89 (1): 101–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Clifford GM, Rana RK, Franceschi S, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype distribution in low-grade cervical lesions: comparison by geographic region and with cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005; 14 (5): 1157–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Villa L. Quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) type 6/11/16/18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine: first analysis of cross-protection against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) caused by oncogenic HPV types in addition to 16/18. 7th International Multidisciplinary Congress: European Research Organization on Genital Infection and Neoplasia (EUROGIN); 2007 Oct 4–6; Monte CarloGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA, et al. High sustained efficacy of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus types 6/11/16/18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine through 5 years of follow-up. Br J Cancer 2006; 95 (11): 1459–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Olsson SE, Villa LL, Costa RLR, et al. 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 2007; 25 (26): 4931–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Van Damme P, Theeten H, Hoppenbrouwers K, et al. Studie van de vaccinatiegraad bij jonge kinderen en adolescenten in Vlaanderen in 2005. Brussels: Ministerie Van De Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Departement Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Cultuur Administratie Gezondheidszorg; March 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.wvc.vlaanderen.be/vaccinatie/documentatie/rapport_couverturestudie.pdf [Accessed 2007 Sep 5]
  43. 43.
    Myers ER, Green SL. Patient preferences for health states related to HPV infection: visual analogue scales vs time trade-off elicitation [abstract no. 390.2]. Proceedings of the 21st International Papillomavirus Conference; 2004 Feb 20–26; Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Elbasha EH, Dasbach EJ, Insinga RP. Model for assessing human papillomavirus vaccination strategies. Emerg Infect Dis 2007; 13 (1): 28–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    RIZIV-INAMI. National Institute of Health Insurance and Invalidity of Belgium [online]. Available from URL: http://www.inami.fgov.be/ [Accessed 2007 Sep 5]
  46. 46.
    Annemans L, Remy V, Lamure E, et al. Economic burden associated with the management of cervical cancer, cervical dysplasia and genital warts in Belgium. J Med Econ 2008; 11: 135–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Moniteur Belge. Oct 19th 2007, version 3, page 54500 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/ [Accessed 2009 Feb 16]
  48. 48.
    Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, et al. Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96 (8): 604–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisani P, et al. Globocan 2002: cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide. Lyon: IARC Press, 2004Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/technologyappraisalprocessguides/guide_to_the_methods_of_technology_appraisal_reference_n0515.jsp [Accessed 2009 Feb 16]
  51. 51.
    Towse A, Pritchard C. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): is economic appraisal working? Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 Suppl. 3: 95–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Conseil supérieur de la santé. Vaccination contre les infections causées par le papillomavirus humain: 2 mai 2007 [online]. Available from URL: https://portal.health.fgov.be/portal/page?_pageid=56,512429&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL [Accessed 2007 Sep 5]Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    The UK Collaborative Group for HIV and STI Surveillance. Testing times: HIV and other sexually transmitted infections in the United Kingdom: London: Health Protection Agency, Centre for Infections. November 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1203084355941 [Accessed 2009 Feb 16]Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dasbach EJ, Elbasha EH, Insinga RP. The epidemiological and economic impact of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (6/11/16/18) in the UK. BJOG 2008; 115 (8): 947–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chesson HW, Ekwueme DU, Saraiya M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis 2008; 14 (2): 244–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Brisson M, Van de Velde N, De Wals P, et al. The potential cost-effectiveness of prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccines in Canada. Vaccine 2007; 25 (29): 5399–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kim SY, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccination programmes: a focused review of modelling approaches. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (3): 191–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dasbach EJ, Elbasha EH, Insinga RP. Mathematical models for predicting the epidemiologic and economic impact of vaccination against human papillomavirus infection and disease. Epidemiol Rev 2006; 28: 88–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Moniteur Belge. 2008 Nov 20, version 2: pp 61781 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/ [Accessed 2009 Feb 16]

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lieven Annemans
    • 1
  • Vanessa Rémy
    • 2
  • James Oyee
    • 3
  • Nathalie Largeron
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Public HealthGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Sanofi Pasteur MSDLyon cedex 07France
  3. 3.Mapi ValuesBollingtonUK

Personalised recommendations