IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0223658.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cost-effectiveness of controlling cervical cancer using a new 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine among school-aged girls in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Rashidul Alam Mahumud
  • Khorshed Alam
  • Jeff Dunn
  • Jeff Gow

Abstract

Introduction: Cervical cancer imposes a substantial health burden worldwide including in Australia and is caused by persistent infection with one of 13 sexually transmitted high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding a nonavalent new Gardasil-9® (9vHPV) vaccine to the national immunisation schedule in Australia across three different delivery strategies. Materials and methods: The Papillomavirus Rapid Interface for Modelling and Economics (PRIME) model was used to examine the cost-effectiveness of 9vHPV vaccine introduction to prevent HPV infection. Academic literature and anecdotal evidence were included on the demographic variables, cervical cancer incidence and mortality, treatment costs, and vaccine delivery costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured per disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, using the heuristic cost-effectiveness threshold defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Analyses and data from international agencies were used in scenario analysis from the health system and societal perspectives. Results: The 9vHPV vaccination was estimated to prevent 113 new cases of cervical cancer (discounted) during a 20-year period. From the health system and societal perspectives, the 9vHPV vaccination was very cost-effective in comparison with the status quo, with an ICER of A$47,008 and A$44,678 per DALY averted, respectively, using the heuristic cost-effectiveness threshold level. Considering delivery strategies, the ICERs per DALY averted were A$47,605, A$46,682, and A$46,738 for school, health facilities, and outreach-based vaccination programs from the health system perspective, wherein, from the societal perspective, the ICERs per DALY averted were A$46,378, A$43,729, A$43,930, respectively. All estimates of ICERs fell below the threshold level (A$73,267). Conclusions: This cost-effectiveness evaluation suggests that the routine two-dose 9vHPV vaccination strategy of preadolescent girls against HPV is very cost-effective in Australia from both the health system and societal perspectives. If equally priced, the 9vHPV option is the most economically viable vaccine. Overall, this analysis seeks to contribute to an evidence-based recommendation about the new 9vHPV vaccination in the national immunisation program in Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • Rashidul Alam Mahumud & Khorshed Alam & Jeff Dunn & Jeff Gow, 2019. "The cost-effectiveness of controlling cervical cancer using a new 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine among school-aged girls in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0223658
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223658
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223658&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0223658?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Siobhan Botwright & Taylor Holroyd & Shreya Nanda & Paul Bloem & Ulla K Griffiths & Anissa Sidibe & Raymond C W Hutubessy, 2017. "Experiences of operational costs of HPV vaccine delivery strategies in Gavi-supported demonstration projects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-13, October.
    2. Anthony H. Harris & Suzanne R. Hill & Geoffrey Chin & Jing Jing Li & Emily Walkom, 2008. "The Role of Value for Money in Public Insurance Coverage Decisions for Drugs in Australia: A Retrospective Analysis 1994-2004," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 713-722, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    2. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    3. Mauskopf, Josephine & Chirila, Costel & Birt, Julie & Boye, Kristina S. & Bowman, Lee, 2013. "Drug reimbursement recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Have they impacted the National Health Service budget?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 49-59.
    4. Kisser, Agnes & Tüchler, Heinz & Erdös, Judit & Wild, Claudia, 2016. "Factors influencing coverage decisions on medical devices: A retrospective analysis of 78 medical device appraisals for the Austrian hospital benefit catalogue 2008–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(8), pages 903-912.
    5. Malinowski, Krzysztof Piotr & Kawalec, Paweł & Trąbka, Wojciech, 2016. "Impact of patient outcomes and cost aspects on reimbursement recommendations in Poland in 2012–2014," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(11), pages 1249-1255.
    6. Lesley Chim & Glenn Salkeld & Patrick Kelly & Wendy Lipworth & Dyfrig A Hughes & Martin R Stockler, 2017. "Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, March.
    7. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.
    8. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    9. Bae, Green & Bae, Eun Young & Bae, SeungJin, 2015. "Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 577-587.
    10. Fischer, Katharina E. & Rogowski, Wolf H. & Leidl, Reiner & Stollenwerk, Björn, 2013. "Transparency vs. closed-door policy: Do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 187-196.
    11. Helen Dakin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng & Nigel Rice & Phill O'Neill & David Parkin, 2015. "The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1256-1271, October.
    12. Eun-Young Bae & Hui Jeong Kim & Hye-Jae Lee & Junho Jang & Seung Min Lee & Yunkyung Jung & Nari Yoon & Tae Kyung Kim & Kookhee Kim & Bong-Min Yang, 2018. "Role of economic evidence in coverage decision-making in South Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, October.
    13. Jennifer Whitty & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele & Paul Scuffham, 2012. "Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 113-126, March.
    14. Paul R. Healey & Dominic Tilden & Dan Jackson & Lara Aghajanian, 2022. "A Cost-Utility Analysis of Trabecular Bypass Devices Versus Usual Care for Patients With Open-Angle Glaucoma," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 355-365, May.
    15. Lesley Chim & Patrick Kelly & Glenn Salkeld & Martin Stockler, 2010. "Are Cancer Drugs Less Likely to be Recommended for Listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 463-475, June.
    16. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    17. Amarzaya Jadambaa & Nicholas Graves & Donna Cross & Rosana Pacella & Hannah J. Thomas & James G. Scott & Qinglu Cheng & David Brain, 2022. "Economic Evaluation of an Intervention Designed to Reduce Bullying in Australian Schools," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 79-89, January.
    18. Angela Rocchi & Elizabeth Miller & Robert Hopkins & Ron Goeree, 2012. "Common Drug Review Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 229-246, March.
    19. Peter Ghijben & Yuanyuan Gu & Emily Lancsar & Silva Zavarsek, 2018. "Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 323-340, March.
    20. Laura Vallejo-Torres & Borja García-Lorenzo & Laura Catherine Edney & Niek Stadhouders & Ijeoma Edoka & Iván Castilla-Rodríguez & Lidia García-Pérez & Renata Linertová & Cristina Valcárcel-Nazco & Jon, 2022. "Are Estimates of the Health Opportunity Cost Being Used to Draw Conclusions in Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses? A Scoping Review in Four Countries," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 337-349, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0223658. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.