85
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Estimated health and economic impact of quadrivalent HPV (types 6/11/16/18) vaccination in Brazil using a transmission dynamic model

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women in Brazil. We examined the health and economic impacts of quadrivalent HPV vaccination in Brazil.

          Methods

          We adapted a previously developed transmission dynamic model to estimate the effectiveness of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN2/3), CIN1, and genital warts. We evaluated following vaccination strategies: routine vaccination of 12-year-old girls and routine vaccination in combination with a catch-up vaccination of 12 to 26-year-old women.

          Results

          The model projected that the vaccination would reduce the incidence rates of HPV 6/11/16/18-related cervical cancer, CIN2/3, CIN1, and female genital warts by 94% to 98% at year 100. Routine vaccination in combination with a catch-up vaccination could prevent approximately 163,000 cases of cervical cancer, 48,000 deaths from cervical cancer, 2.3 million cases of CIN2/3, and 11.4 million genital warts in the next 50 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for female vaccination strategies ranged from R$350 to R$720 (US$219 to US$450) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

          Conclusions

          Our study demonstrates that quadrivalent HPV female vaccination can be a cost-effective public health intervention that can substantially reduce the burden of cervical diseases and genital warts in Brazil.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Worldwide burden of cervical cancer in 2008.

          The knowledge that persistent human papillomavirus infection is the main cause of cervical cancer has resulted in the development of assays that detect nucleic acids of the virus and prophylactic vaccines. Up-to-date and reliable data are needed to assess impact of existing preventive measures and to define priorities for the future. Best estimates on cervical cancer incidence and mortality are presented using recently compiled data from cancer and mortality registries for the year 2008. There were an estimated 530,000 cases of cervical cancer and 275,000 deaths from the disease in 2008. It is the third most common female cancer ranking after breast (1.38 million cases) and colorectal cancer (0.57 million cases). The incidence of cervical cancer varies widely among countries with world age-standardised rates ranging from 50 per 100,000. Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death among women in Eastern, Western and Middle Africa; Central America; South-Central Asia and Melanesia. The highest incidence rate is observed in Guinea, with ∼6.5% of women developing cervical cancer before the age of 75 years. India is the country with the highest disease frequency with 134,000 cases and 73 000 deaths. Cervical cancer, more than the other major cancers, affects women <45 years. In spite of effective screening methods, cervical cancer continues to be a major public health problem. New methodologies of cervical cancer prevention should be made available and accessible for women of all countries through well-organised programmes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in young women: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II efficacy trial.

            A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase II study was done to assess the efficacy of a prophylactic quadrivalent vaccine targeting the human papillomavirus (HPV) types associated with 70% of cervical cancers (types 16 and 18) and with 90% of genital warts (types 6 and 11). 277 young women (mean age 20.2 years [SD 1.7]) were randomly assigned to quadrivalent HPV (20 microg type 6, 40 microg type 11, 40 microg type 16, and 20 microg type 18) L1 virus-like-particle (VLP) vaccine and 275 (mean age 20.0 years [1.7]) to one of two placebo preparations at day 1, month 2, and month 6. For 36 months, participants underwent regular gynaecological examinations, cervicovaginal sampling for HPV DNA, testing for serum antibodies to HPV, and Pap testing. The primary endpoint was the combined incidence of infection with HPV 6, 11, 16, or 18, or cervical or external genital disease (ie, persistent HPV infection, HPV detection at the last recorded visit, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, cervical cancer, or external genital lesions caused by the HPV types in the vaccine). Main analyses were done per protocol. Combined incidence of persistent infection or disease with HPV 6, 11, 16, or 18 fell by 90% (95% CI 71-97, p<0.0001) in those assigned vaccine compared with those assigned placebo. A vaccine targeting HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18 could substantially reduce the acquisition of infection and clinical disease caused by common HPV types.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cross-protective efficacy of two human papillomavirus vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

              The extent of cross-protection is a key element in the choice of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to use in vaccination programmes. We compared the cross-protective efficacy of the bivalent vaccine (HPV 16 and 18; Cervarix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium) and quadrivalent vaccine (HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18; Gardasil, Merck, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) against non-vaccine type HPVs. We searched Medline and Embase databases, conference abstracts, and manufacturers' websites for randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy of bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines against persistent infections (lasting ≥6 months) and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) associated with the non-vaccine type HPVs (types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58). We included studies of participants who were HPV DNA negative before vaccination for all HPV types assessed. We assessed heterogeneity in vaccine efficacy estimates between trials with I(2) and χ(2) statistics. We identified two clinical trials (Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease [FUTURE] I and II) of the quadrivalent vaccine and three (Papilloma Trial Against Cancer In Young Adults [PATRICIA], HPV007, and HPV-023) of the bivalent vaccine. Analysis of the most comparable populations (pooled FUTURE I/II data vs PATRICIA) suggested that cross-protective vaccine efficacy estimates against infections and lesions associated with HPV 31, 33, and 45 were usually higher for the bivalent vaccine than the quadrivalent vaccine. Vaccine efficacy in the bivalent trial was higher than it was in the quadrivalent trial against persistent infections with HPV 31 (77·1% [95% CI 67·2 to 84·4] for bivalent vaccine vs 46·2% [15·3 to 66·4] for quadrivalent vaccine; p=0·003) and HPV 45 (79·0% [61·3 to 89·4] vs 7·8% [-67·0 to 49·3]; p=0·0003), and against CIN grade 2 or worse associated with HPV 33 (82·3% [53·4 to 94·7] vs 24·0% [-71·2 to 67·2]; p=0·02) and HPV 45 (100% [41·7 to 100] vs -51·9% [-1717·8 to 82·6]; p=0·04). We noted substantial heterogeneity between vaccine efficacy in bivalent trials against persistent infections with HPV 31 (I(2)=69%, p=0·04) and HPV 45 (I(2)=70%, p=0·04), with apparent reductions in cross-protective efficacy with increased follow-up. The bivalent vaccine seems more efficacious against non-vaccine HPV types 31, 33, and 45 than the quadrivalent vaccine, but the differences were not all significant and might be attributable to differences in trial design. Efficacy against persistent infections with types 31 and 45 seemed to decrease in bivalent trials with increased follow-up, suggesting a waning of cross-protection; more data are needed to establish duration of cross-protection. Public Health Agency of Canada. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Infect Dis
                BMC Infect. Dis
                BMC Infectious Diseases
                BioMed Central
                1471-2334
                2012
                9 October 2012
                : 12
                : 250
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Temple University, 3307 N. Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19140, USA
                [2 ]Axia.Bio, São Paulo, Brazil
                [3 ]Federal University of São Paulo – UNIFESP, São Paulo, Brazil
                [4 ]Atlas Data Systems, Westfield, NJ, 07090, USA
                [5 ]Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, PA, 19486, USA
                Article
                1471-2334-12-250
                10.1186/1471-2334-12-250
                3517904
                23046886
                6b131a73-0b8a-41bb-a734-15ed579930bd
                Copyright ©2012 Kawai et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 5 December 2011
                : 1 October 2012
                Categories
                Research Article

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                Infectious disease & Microbiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article