Potential population-level effectiveness of one-dose HPV vaccination in low-income and middle-income countries: a mathematical modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: Given the accumulating evidence that one-dose vaccination could provide high and sustained protection against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and related diseases, we examined the population-level effectiveness and efficiency of one-dose HPV vaccination of girls compared with two-dose vaccination, using mathematical modelling. METHODS: In this mathematical modelling study, we used HPV-ADVISE LMIC, an individual-based transmission-dynamic model independently calibrated to four epidemiologically diverse low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs; India, Nigeria, Uganda, and Viet Nam). We parameterised and calibrated the model using sexual behaviour and epidemiological data identified from international population-based datasets and the literature. All base-case vaccination scenarios start in 2023 with the nonavalent vaccine and assumed 80% vaccination coverage with one or two doses. We assumed that two doses of vaccine provide 100% efficacy against vaccine-type infections and a lifelong duration of protection. We examined a non-inferior vaccination scenario for one dose compared with two doses, pessimistic scenarios of lower one-dose vaccine efficacy (85%) or a shorter duration of protection (ie, 20 or 30 years), and the effectiveness of a mitigation scenario in which schedules would switch from one dose to two doses. We also did sensitivity analyses by varying vaccination coverage. We used three outcomes: the relative reduction in cervical cancer incidence, the number of cervical cancers averted, and the number of vaccine doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer. FINDINGS: Assuming non-inferior vaccine characteristics for one dose compared with two doses, the model projections show that two-dose or one-dose routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years (with a multi-age cohort vaccination of girls aged 10-14 years) would avert 12·0 million (80% UI 9·5-14·5) cervical cancers in India, 4·7 million (3·4-5·8) in Nigeria, 2·3 million (1·9-2·6) in Uganda, and 0·4 million (0·2-0·5) in Viet Nam over 100 years. Under pessimistic assumptions of lower one-dose efficacy (85%) or a shorter duration of protection (ie, 30 years), one-dose routine vaccination would avert 69% (61-80) to 94% (92-96) of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose routine vaccination. However, when assuming a duration of protection of 20 years, one-dose routine vaccination would avert substantially fewer cervical cancers (ie, 35% [26-44] to 69% [65-71] of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose routine vaccination). A switch from one-dose to two-dose routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years, with a one-dose catch-up of girls aged 10-14 years, 5 years after the start of the vaccination programme, could mitigate potential losses in cervical cancer prevention from a short one-dose duration of protection (averting 92% [83-98] to 99% [97-100]) of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose routine vaccination). One-dose routine vaccination would result in fewer doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer than two-dose routine vaccination, even if the duration of protection is as low as 20 years. Finally, for countries with two-dose routine vaccination, adding one-dose multi-age cohort vaccination in the first year would provide similar benefits as a two-dose multi-age cohort vaccination, and would be more efficient even under the pessimistic assumptions of lower one-dose vaccine efficacy or duration of protection. INTERPRETATION: One-dose routine vaccination could avert most of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose vaccination while being more efficient, provided the duration of one-dose protection is greater than 20-30 years (depending on the LMIC). The doses saved by introducing one-dose routine vaccination could offer the opportunity to vaccinate girls before they age out of the vaccination window of 9-14 years and, potentially, to vaccinate boys or older age groups. FUNDING: Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Digital Research Alliance of Canada, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Global impact and cost-effectiveness of one-dose versus two-dose human papillomavirus vaccination schedules: a comparative modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: To eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, the World Health Organization had recommended routine vaccination of adolescent girls with two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine before sexual initiation. However, many countries have yet to implement HPV vaccination because of financial or logistical barriers to delivering two doses outside the infant immunisation programme. METHODS: Using three independent HPV transmission models, we estimated the long-term health benefits and cost-effectiveness of one-dose versus two-dose HPV vaccination, in 188 countries, under scenarios in which one dose of the vaccine gives either a shorter duration of full protection (20 or 30 years) or lifelong protection but lower vaccine efficacy (e.g. 80%) compared to two doses. We simulated routine vaccination with the 9-valent HPV vaccine in 10-year-old girls at 80% coverage for the years 2021-2120, with a 1-year catch-up campaign up to age 14 at 80% coverage in the first year of the programme. RESULTS: Over the years 2021-2120, one-dose vaccination at 80% coverage was projected to avert 115.2 million (range of medians: 85.1-130.4) and 146.8 million (114.1-161.6) cervical cancers assuming one dose of the vaccine confers 20 and 30 years of protection, respectively. Should one dose of the vaccine provide lifelong protection at 80% vaccine efficacy, 147.8 million (140.6-169.7) cervical cancer cases could be prevented. If protection wanes after 20 years, 65 to 889 additional girls would need to be vaccinated with the second dose to prevent one cervical cancer, depending on the epidemiological profiles of the country. Across all income groups, the threshold cost for the second dose was low: from 1.59 (0.14-3.82) USD in low-income countries to 44.83 (3.75-85.64) USD in high-income countries, assuming one dose confers 30-year protection. CONCLUSIONS: Results were consistent across the three independent models and suggest that one-dose vaccination has similar health benefits to a two-dose programme while simplifying vaccine delivery, reducing costs, and alleviating vaccine supply constraints. The second dose may become cost-effective if there is a shorter duration of protection from one dose, cheaper vaccine and vaccination delivery strategies, and high burden of cervical cancer.

Potential benefit of extended dose schedules of human papillomavirus vaccination in the context of scarce resources and COVID-19 disruptions in low-income and middle-income countries: a mathematical modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts recommended that an extended interval of 3-5 years between the two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine could be considered to alleviate vaccine supply shortages. However, three concerns have limited the introduction of extended schedules: girls could be infected between the two doses, the vaccination coverage for the second dose could be lower at ages 13-14 years than at ages 9-10 years, and identifying girls vaccinated with a first dose to give them the second dose could be difficult. Using mathematical modelling, we examined the potential effect of these concerns on the population-level impact and efficiency of extended dose HPV vaccination schedules. METHODS: We used HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based, transmission-dynamic model of multitype HPV infection and disease, calibrated to country-specific data for four low-income and middle-income countries (India, Viet Nam, Uganda, and Nigeria). For the extended dose scenarios, we varied the vaccination coverage of the second dose among girls previously vaccinated, the one-dose vaccine efficacy, and the one-dose vaccine duration of protection. We also examined a strategy in which girls aged 14 years were vaccinated irrespective of their previous vaccination status. We used a scenario of girls-only two-dose vaccination at age 9 years (vaccine=9 valent, vaccine-type efficacy=100%, duration of protection=lifetime, and coverage=80%) as our comparator. We estimated two outcomes: the relative reduction in the age-standardised cervical cancer incidence (population-level impact) and the number of cervical cancers averted per 100 000 doses (efficiency). FINDINGS: Our model projected substantial reductions in cervical cancer incidence over 100 years with the two-dose schedule (79-86% depending on the country), compared with no vaccination. Projections for the 5-year extended schedule, in which the second dose is given only to girls previously vaccinated at age 9 years, were similar to the current two-dose schedule, unless vaccination coverage of the second dose is very low (reductions in cervical cancer incidence of 71-78% assuming 30% coverage at age 14 years among girls vaccinated at age 9 years). However, when the dose at age 14 years is given to girls irrespective of vaccination status and assuming high vaccination coverage, the model projected a substantially greater reduction in cervical cancer incidence compared with the current two-dose schedule (reductions in cervical cancer incidence of 86-93% assuming 70% coverage at age 14 years, irrespective of vaccination status). Efficiency of the extended schedule was greater than the two-dose schedule, even with a drop in vaccination coverage. INTERPRETATION: The three concerns are unlikely to have a substantial effect on the population-level impact of extended dose schedules. Hence, extended dose schedules will likely provide similar cervical cancer reductions as two-dose schedules, while reducing the number of doses required in the short-term, providing a more efficient use of scarce resources, and offering a 5-year time window to reassess the necessity of the second dose. FUNDING: WHO, Canadian Institute of Health Research Foundation, Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Digital Research Alliance of Canada, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Now or later: Health impacts of delaying single-dose HPV vaccine implementation in a high-burden setting.

We aimed to quantify the health impact of immediate introduction of a single-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program in a high-burden setting, as waiting until forthcoming trials are completed to implement single-dose HPV vaccination may result in health losses, particularly for cohorts who would age-out of vaccination eligibility. Two mathematical models fitted to a high-burden setting projected cervical cancer incidence rates associated with (a) immediate implementation of one-dose HPV vaccination vs (b) waiting 5 years for evidence from randomized trials to determine if one- or two-doses should be implemented. We conducted analyses assuming a single dose was either noninferior or inferior to two doses. The models projected that immediate implementation of a noninferior single-dose vaccine led to a 7.2% to 9.6% increase in cancers averted between 2021 to 2120, compared to waiting 5 years. Health benefits remained greater with immediate implementation despite an inferior single-dose efficacy (80%), but revaccination of one-dose recipients became more important assuming vaccine waning. Under most circumstances, immediate vaccination avoided health losses for those aging out of vaccine eligibility, leading to greater health benefits than waiting for more information in 5 years.

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.

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 Estimated Direct Lifetime Medical Costs of Sexually Transmitted Infections Acquired in the United States in 2018.

BACKGROUND: We estimated the lifetime medical costs attributable to sexually transmitted infections (STIs) acquired in 2018, including sexually acquired human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). METHODS: We estimated the lifetime medical costs of infections acquired in 2018 in the United States for 8 STIs: chlamydia, gonorrhea, trichomoniasis, syphilis, genital herpes, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis B, and HIV. We limited our analysis to lifetime medical costs incurred for treatment of STIs and for treatment of related sequelae; we did not include other costs, such as STI prevention. For each STI, except HPV, we calculated the lifetime medical cost by multiplying the estimated number of incident infections in 2018 by the estimated lifetime cost per infection. For HPV, we calculated the lifetime cost based on the projected lifetime incidence of health outcomes attributed to HPV infections acquired in 2018. Future costs were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Incident STIs in 2018 imposed an estimated $15.9 billion (25th-75th percentile: $14.9-16.9 billion) in discounted, lifetime direct medical costs (2019 US dollars). Most of this cost was due to sexually acquired HIV ($13.7 billion) and HPV ($0.8 billion). STIs in women accounted for about one fourth of the cost of incident STIs when including HIV, but about three fourths when excluding HIV. STIs among 15- to 24-year-olds accounted for $4.2 billion (26%) of the cost of incident STIs. CONCLUSIONS: Incident STIs continue to impose a considerable lifetime medical cost burden in the United States. These results can inform health economic analyses to promote the use of cost-effective STI prevention interventions to reduce this burden.

Estimated Prevalence and Incidence of Disease-Associated Human Papillomavirus Types Among 15- to 59-Year-Olds in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Human papillomavirus (HPV) can cause anogenital warts and several types of cancer, including cervical cancers and precancers. We estimated the prevalence, incidence, and number of persons with prevalent and incident HPV infections in the United States in 2018. METHODS: Prevalence and incidence were estimated for infections with any HPV (any of 37 types detected using Linear Array) and disease-associated HPV, 2 types that cause anogenital warts plus 14 types detected by tests used for cervical cancer screening (HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68). We used the 2013-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to estimate prevalence among 15- to 59-year-olds, overall and by sex. Incidences in 2018 were estimated per 10,000 persons using an individual-based transmission-dynamic type-specific model calibrated to US data. We estimated number of infected persons by applying prevalences and incidences to 2018 US population estimates. RESULTS: Prevalence of infection with any HPV was 40.0% overall, 41.8% in men, and 38.4% in women; prevalence of infection with disease-associated HPV was 24.2% in men and 19.9% in women. An estimated 23.4 and 19.2 million men and women had a disease-associated HPV type infection in 2018. Incidences of any and disease-associated HPV infection were 1222 and 672 per 10,000 persons; incidence of disease-associated HPV infection was 708 per 10,000 men and 636 per 10,000 women. An estimated 6.9 and 6.1 million men and women had an incident infection with a disease-associated HPV type in 2018. CONCLUSIONS: We document a high HPV burden of infection in the United States in 2018, with 42 million persons infected with disease-associated HPV and 13 million persons acquiring a new infection. Although most infections clear, some disease-associated HPV type infections progress to disease. The HPV burden highlights the need for continued monitoring of HPV-associated cancers, cervical cancer screening, and HPV vaccination to track and prevent disease.

The Estimated Lifetime Medical Cost of Diseases Attributable to Human Papillomavirus Infections Acquired in 2018.

INTRODUCTION: We estimated the lifetime medical costs of diagnosed cases of diseases attributable to human papillomavirus (HPV) infections acquired in 2018. METHODS: We adapted an existing mathematical model of HPV transmission and associated diseases to estimate the lifetime number of diagnosed cases of disease (genital warts; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; and cervical, vaginal, vulvar, penile, anal, and oropharyngeal cancers) attributable to HPV infections that were acquired in 2018. For each of these outcomes, we multiplied the estimated number of cases by the estimated lifetime medical cost per case obtained from previous studies. We estimated the costs of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis in a separate calculation. Future costs were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: The estimated discounted lifetime medical cost of diseases attributable to HPV infections acquired in 2018 among people aged 15 to 59 years was $774 million (in 2019 US dollars), of which approximately half was accounted for by infections in those aged 15 to 24 years. Human papillomavirus infections in women accounted for approximately 90% of the lifetime number of diagnosed cases of disease and 70% of the lifetime cost attributable to HPV infections acquired in 2018 among those aged 15 to 59 years. CONCLUSIONS: We estimated the lifetime medical costs of diseases attributable to HPV infections acquired in 2018 to be $774 million. This estimate is lower than previous estimates, likely due to the impact of HPV vaccination. The lifetime cost of disease attributable to incident HPV infections is expected to decrease further over time as HPV vaccination coverage increases.

Impact of HPV vaccination and cervical screening on cervical cancer elimination: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Director-General has issued a call for action to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To help inform global efforts, we modelled potential human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cervical screening scenarios in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) to examine the feasibility and timing of elimination at different thresholds, and to estimate the number of cervical cancer cases averted on the path to elimination. METHODS: The WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC), which consists of three independent transmission-dynamic models identified by WHO according to predefined criteria, projected reductions in cervical cancer incidence over time in 78 LMICs for three standardised base-case scenarios: girls-only vaccination; girls-only vaccination and once-lifetime screening; and girls-only vaccination and twice-lifetime screening. Girls were vaccinated at age 9 years (with a catch-up to age 14 years), assuming 90% coverage and 100% lifetime protection against HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Cervical screening involved HPV testing once or twice per lifetime at ages 35 years and 45 years, with uptake increasing from 45% (2023) to 90% (2045 onwards). The elimination thresholds examined were an average age-standardised cervical cancer incidence of four or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years and ten or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, and an 85% or greater reduction in incidence. Sensitivity analyses were done, varying vaccination and screening strategies and assumptions. We summarised results using the median (range) of model predictions. FINDINGS: Girls-only HPV vaccination was predicted to reduce the median age-standardised cervical cancer incidence in LMICs from 19·8 (range 19·4-19·8) to 2·1 (2·0-2·6) cases per 100 000 women-years over the next century (89·4% [86·2-90·1] reduction), and to avert 61·0 million (60·5-63·0) cases during this period. Adding twice-lifetime screening reduced the incidence to 0·7 (0·6-1·6) cases per 100 000 women-years (96·7% [91·3-96·7] reduction) and averted an extra 12·1 million (9·5-13·7) cases. Girls-only vaccination was predicted to result in elimination in 60% (58-65) of LMICs based on the threshold of four or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, in 99% (89-100) of LMICs based on the threshold of ten or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, and in 87% (37-99) of LMICs based on the 85% or greater reduction threshold. When adding twice-lifetime screening, 100% (71-100) of LMICs reached elimination for all three thresholds. In regions in which all countries can achieve cervical cancer elimination with girls-only vaccination, elimination could occur between 2059 and 2102, depending on the threshold and region. Introducing twice-lifetime screening accelerated elimination by 11-31 years. Long-term vaccine protection was required for elimination. INTERPRETATION: Predictions were consistent across our three models and suggest that high HPV vaccination coverage of girls can lead to cervical cancer elimination in most LMICs by the end of the century. Screening with high uptake will expedite reductions and will be necessary to eliminate cervical cancer in countries with the highest burden. FUNDING: WHO, UNDP, UN Population Fund, UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Compute Canada, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia Centre for Research Excellence in Cervical Cancer Control.

Mortality impact of achieving WHO cervical cancer elimination targets: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: WHO is developing a global strategy towards eliminating cervical cancer as a public health problem, which proposes an elimination threshold of four cases per 100 000 women and includes 2030 triple-intervention coverage targets for scale-up of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to 90%, twice-lifetime cervical screening to 70%, and treatment of pre-invasive lesions and invasive cancer to 90%. We assessed the impact of achieving the 90-70-90 triple-intervention targets on cervical cancer mortality and deaths averted over the next century. We also assessed the potential for the elimination initiative to support target 3.4 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-a one-third reduction in premature mortality from non-communicable diseases by 2030. METHODS: The WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC) involves three independent, dynamic models of HPV infection, cervical carcinogenesis, screening, and precancer and invasive cancer treatment. Reductions in age-standardised rates of cervical cancer mortality in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) were estimated for three core scenarios: girls-only vaccination at age 9 years with catch-up for girls aged 10-14 years; girls-only vaccination plus once-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up; and girls-only vaccination plus twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up. Vaccination was assumed to provide 100% lifetime protection against infections with HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, and to scale up to 90% coverage in 2020. Cervical screening involved HPV testing at age 35 years, or at ages 35 years and 45 years, with scale-up to 45% coverage by 2023, 70% by 2030, and 90% by 2045, and we assumed that 50% of women with invasive cervical cancer would receive appropriate surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy by 2023, which would increase to 90% by 2030. We summarised results using the median (range) of model predictions. FINDINGS: In 2020, the estimated cervical cancer mortality rate across all 78 LMICs was 13·2 (range 12·9-14·1) per 100 000 women. Compared to the status quo, by 2030, vaccination alone would have minimal impact on cervical cancer mortality, leading to a 0·1% (0·1-0·5) reduction, but additionally scaling up twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 34·2% (23·3-37·8), averting 300 000 (300 000-400 000) deaths by 2030 (with similar results for once-lifetime screening). By 2070, scaling up vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 61·7% (61·4-66·1), averting 4·8 million (4·1-4·8) deaths. By 2070, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 88·9% (84·0-89·3), averting 13·3 million (13·1-13·6) deaths (with once-lifetime screening), or by 92·3% (88·4-93·0), averting 14·6 million (14·1-14·6) deaths (with twice-lifetime screening). By 2120, vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 89·5% (86·6-89·9), averting 45·8 million (44·7-46·4) deaths. By 2120, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 97·9% (95·0-98·0), averting 60·8 million (60·2-61·2) deaths (with once-lifetime screening), or by 98·6% (96·5-98·6), averting 62·6 million (62·1-62·8) deaths (with twice-lifetime screening). With the WHO triple-intervention strategy, over the next 10 years, about half (48% [45-55]) of deaths averted would be in sub-Saharan Africa and almost a third (32% [29-34]) would be in South Asia; over the next 100 years, almost 90% of deaths averted would be in these regions. For premature deaths (age 30-69 years), the WHO triple-intervention strategy would result in rate reductions of 33·9% (24·4-37·9) by 2030, 96·2% (94·3-96·8) by 2070, and 98·6% (96·9-98·8) by 2120. INTERPRETATION: These findings emphasise the importance of acting immediately on three fronts to scale up vaccination, screening, and treatment for pre-invasive and invasive cervical cancer. In the next 10 years, a one-third reduction in the rate of premature mortality from cervical cancer in LMICs is possible, contributing to the realisation of the 2030 UN SDGs. Over the next century, successful implementation of the WHO elimination strategy would reduce cervical cancer mortality by almost 99% and save more than 62 million women's lives. FUNDING: WHO, UNDP, UN Population Fund, UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Germany Federal Ministry of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Centre for Research Excellence in Cervical Cancer Control, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Compute Canada, and Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Through Age 45 Years in the United States.

Background: In the United States, the routine age for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is 11 to 12 years, with catch-up vaccination through age 26 years for women and 21 years for men. U.S. vaccination policy on use of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in adult women and men is being reviewed. Objective: To evaluate the added population-level effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of extending the current U.S. HPV vaccination program to women aged 27 to 45 years and men aged 22 to 45 years. Design: The analysis used HPV-ADVISE (Agent-based Dynamic model for VaccInation and Screening Evaluation), an individual-based transmission dynamic model of HPV infection and associated diseases, calibrated to age-specific U.S. data. Data Sources: Published data. Target Population: Women aged 27 to 45 years and men aged 22 to 45 years in the United States. Time Horizon: 100 years. Perspective: Health care sector. Intervention: 9-valent HPV vaccination. Outcome Measures: HPV-associated outcomes prevented and cost-effectiveness ratios. Results of Base-Case Analysis: The model predicts that the current U.S. HPV vaccination program will reduce the number of diagnoses of anogenital warts and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or 3 and cases of cervical cancer and noncervical HPV-associated cancer by 82%, 80%, 59%, and 39%, respectively, over 100 years and is cost saving (vs. no vaccination). In contrast, extending vaccination to women and men aged 45 years is predicted to reduce these outcomes by an additional 0.4, 0.4, 0.2, and 0.2 percentage points, respectively. Vaccinating women and men up to age 30, 40, and 45 years is predicted to cost $830 000, $1 843 000, and $1 471 000, respectively, per quality-adjusted life-year gained (vs. current vaccination). Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Results were most sensitive to assumptions about natural immunity and progression rates after infection, historical vaccination coverage, and vaccine efficacy. Limitation: Uncertainty about the proportion of HPV-associated disease due to infections after age 26 years and about the level of herd effects from the current HPV vaccination program. Conclusion: The current HPV vaccination program is predicted to be cost saving. Extending vaccination to older ages is predicted to produce small additional health benefits and result in substantially higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than the current recommendation. Primary Funding Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Impact of Human Papillomavirus Catch-Up Vaccination in Australia: Implications for Introduction of Multiple Age Cohort Vaccination and Postvaccination Data Interpretation.

We used transmission-dynamic modeling to estimate the added effectiveness of vaccinating multiple cohorts of females (12-26 years) in Australia compared with the theoretical introduction of routine-only (12-13 years) vaccination. Our results suggest that vaccinating multiple cohorts produced markedly faster direct/herd effects, and it added benefits that last for 20-70 years. Furthermore, the number needed to vaccinate to prevent 1 anogential warts (AGW) case or cervical cancer (CC) was similar for routine + catch-up (AGW = 9.9, CC = 678) and routine-only vaccination (AGW = 9.9, CC = 677), thus providing similar levels of efficiency per person vaccinated.

Bias Due to Correlation Between Times-at-Risk for Infection in Epidemiologic Studies Measuring Biological Interactions Between Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Case Study Using Human Papillomavirus Type Interactions.

The clustering of human papillomavirus (HPV) infections in some individuals is often interpreted as the result of common risk factors rather than biological interactions between different types of HPV. The intraindividual correlation between times-at-risk for all HPV infections is not generally considered in the analysis of epidemiologic studies. We used a deterministic transmission model to simulate cross-sectional and prospective epidemiologic studies measuring associations between 2 HPV types. When we assumed no interactions, the model predicted that studies would estimate odds ratios and incidence rate ratios greater than 1 between HPV types even after complete adjustment for sexual behavior. We demonstrated that this residual association is due to correlation between the times-at-risk for different HPV types, where individuals become concurrently at risk for all of their partners' HPV types when they enter a partnership and are not at risk when they are single. This correlation can be controlled in prospective studies by restricting analyses to susceptible individuals with an infected sexual partner. The bias in the measured associations was largest in low-sexual-activity populations, cross-sectional studies, and studies which evaluated infection with a first HPV type as the exposure. These results suggest that current epidemiologic evidence does not preclude the existence of competitive biological interactions between HPV types.

Mathematical Modeling of the Transmission Dynamics of Clostridium difficile Infection and Colonization in Healthcare Settings: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review of mathematical models of transmission dynamic of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in healthcare settings, to provide an overview of existing models and their assessment of different CDI control strategies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science up to February 3, 2016 for transmission-dynamic models of Clostridium difficile in healthcare settings. The models were compared based on their natural history representation of Clostridium difficile, which could include health states (S-E-A-I-R-D: Susceptible-Exposed-Asymptomatic-Infectious-Resistant-Deceased) and the possibility to include healthcare workers and visitors (vectors of transmission). Effectiveness of interventions was compared using the relative reduction (compared to no intervention or current practice) in outcomes such as incidence of colonization, CDI, CDI recurrence, CDI mortality, and length of stay. RESULTS: Nine studies describing six different models met the inclusion criteria. Over time, the models have generally increased in complexity in terms of natural history and transmission dynamics and number/complexity of interventions/bundles of interventions examined. The models were categorized into four groups with respect to their natural history representation: S-A-I-R, S-E-A-I, S-A-I, and S-E-A-I-R-D. Seven studies examined the impact of CDI control strategies. Interventions aimed at controlling the transmission, lowering CDI vulnerability and reducing the risk of recurrence/mortality were predicted to reduce CDI incidence by 3-49%, 5-43% and 5-29%, respectively. Bundles of interventions were predicted to reduce CDI incidence by 14-84%. CONCLUSIONS: Although CDI is a major public health problem, there are very few published transmission-dynamic models of Clostridium difficile. Published models vary substantially in the interventions examined, the outcome measures used and the representation of the natural history of Clostridium difficile, which make it difficult to synthesize results and provide a clear picture of optimal intervention strategies. Future modeling efforts should pay specific attention to calibration, structural uncertainties, and transparent reporting practices.

Comparison of 2-Dose and 3-Dose 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Schedules in the United States: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

A recent clinical trial using the 9-valent human papillomavirus virus (HPV) vaccine has shown that antibody responses after 2 doses are noninferior to those after 3 doses, suggesting that 2 and 3 doses may have comparable vaccine efficacy. We used an individual-based transmission-dynamic model to compare the population-level effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 2- and 3-dose schedules of 9-valent HPV vaccine in the United States. Our model predicts that if 2 doses of 9-valent vaccine protect for ≥20 years, the additional benefits of a 3-dose schedule are small as compared to those of 2-dose schedules, and 2-dose schedules are likely much more cost-efficient than 3-dose schedules.

Impact and Cost-effectiveness of 3 Doses of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Among US Females Previously Vaccinated With 4-Valent HPV Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: We estimated the potential impact and cost-effectiveness of providing 3-doses of nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (9vHPV) to females aged 13-18 years who had previously completed a series of quadrivalent HPV vaccine (4vHPV), a strategy we refer to as "additional 9vHPV vaccination." METHODS: We used 2 distinct models: (1) the simplified model, which is among the most basic of the published dynamic HPV models, and (2) the US HPV-ADVISE model, a complex, stochastic, individual-based transmission-dynamic model. RESULTS: When assuming no 4vHPV cross-protection, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by additional 9vHPV vaccination was $146 200 in the simplified model and $108 200 in the US HPV-ADVISE model ($191 800 when assuming 4vHPV cross-protection). In 1-way sensitivity analyses in the scenario of no 4vHPV cross-protection, the simplified model results ranged from $70 300 to $182 000, and the US HPV-ADVISE model results ranged from $97 600 to $118 900. CONCLUSIONS: The average cost per QALY gained by additional 9vHPV vaccination exceeded $100 000 in both models. However, the results varied considerably in sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. Additional 9vHPV vaccination is likely not as efficient as many other potential HPV vaccination strategies, such as increasing primary 9vHPV vaccine coverage.

Health and Economic Impact of Switching from a 4-Valent to a 9-Valent HPV Vaccination Program in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have shown the 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to be highly effective against types 31/33/45/52/58 compared with the 4-valent. Evidence on the added health and economic benefit of the 9-valent is required for policy decisions. We compare population-level effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 9- and 4-valent HPV vaccination in the United States. METHODS: We used a multitype individual-based transmission-dynamic model of HPV infection and disease (anogenital warts and cervical, anogenital, and oropharyngeal cancers), 3% discount rate, and societal perspective. The model was calibrated to sexual behavior and epidemiologic data from the United States. In our base-case, we assumed 95% vaccine-type efficacy, lifelong protection, and a cost/dose of $145 and $158 for the 4- and 9-valent vaccine, respectively. Predictions are presented using the mean (80% uncertainty interval [UI] = 10(th)-90(th) percentiles) of simulations. RESULTS: Under base-case assumptions, the 4-valent gender-neutral vaccination program is estimated to cost $5500 (80% UI = 2400-9400) and $7300 (80% UI = 4300-11 000)/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with and without cross-protection, respectively. Switching to a 9-valent gender-neutral program is estimated to be cost-saving irrespective of cross-protection assumptions. Finally, the incremental cost/QALY gained of switching to a 9-valent gender-neutral program (vs 9-valent girls/4-valent boys) is estimated to be $140 200 (80% UI = 4200->1 million) and $31 100 (80% UI = 2100->1 million) with and without cross-protection, respectively. Results are robust to assumptions about HPV natural history, screening methods, duration of protection, and healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to a 9-valent gender-neutral HPV vaccination program is likely to be cost-saving if the additional cost/dose of the 9-valent is less than $13. Giving females the 9-valent vaccine provides the majority of benefits of a gender-neutral strategy.

Cost-effectiveness of the next generation nonavalent human papillomavirus vaccine in the context of primary human papillomavirus screening in Australia: a comparative modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: First generation bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines have been introduced in most developed countries. A next generation nonavalent vaccine (HPV9) has become available, just as many countries are considering transitioning from cytology-based to HPV-based cervical screening. A key driver for the cost-effectiveness of HPV9 will be a reduction in screen-detected abnormalities and surveillance tests. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HPV9 in Australia, a country with HPV vaccination of both sexes that is transitioning to 5-yearly HPV-based screening. METHODS: We used Policy1-Cervix and HPV-ADVISE-two dynamic models of HPV transmission, vaccination, and cervical screening-to estimate the cost-effectiveness of HPV9 versus quadrivalent vaccine (HPV4), assuming lifelong vaccine protection, two vaccine doses, and that additional costs were incurred in girls only. Policy1-Cervix was used to estimate the lifetime risk of cervical cancer diagnosis and death. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the cost-effectiveness outcomes was done with both models, and results are presented as the median and 10th to 90th percentiles of simulation runs (referred to as 80% uncertainty intervals [UIs]). FINDINGS: Compared with cytology-based screening, HPV screening is predicted to reduce lifetime risk of cervical cancer diagnosis by 18% and of death by 20%, even in unvaccinated cohorts. Under base-case assumptions (lifelong protection, full efficacy at two doses), HPV4 will provide a further reduction in diagnosis of 54% and in death of 53% and HPV9 will provide a further reduction in both diagnosis and death of 11%, compared with cytology-based screening in unvaccinated cohorts. For HPV9 to remain a cost-effective alternative to HPV4, the incremental cost per dose in girls should not exceed a median of AUS$35·99 (80% UI 28·47-41·18) with Policy1-Cervix or AUS$22·74 (15·49-34·45) with HPV-ADVISE, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AUS$30 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. INTERPRETATION: Differing methods and assumptions led to some differences in the estimates produced by the two models. However, on the basis of median results, HPV9 will be a cost-effective alternative to HPV4 if the additional cost per dose is AUS$23-36 (US$18-28). These results will be important when determining the optimum price of the vaccine in Australia. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.