National- and state-level impact and cost-effectiveness of nonavalent HPV vaccination in the United States

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

Every year in the United States more than 12,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer, a disease principally caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines protect against 66% of HPV-associated cervical cancers, and a new nonavalent vaccine protects against an additional 15% of cervical cancers. However, vaccination policy varies across states, and migration between states interdependently dilutes state-specific vaccination policies. To quantify the economic and epidemiological impacts of switching to the nonavalent vaccine both for individual states and for the nation as a whole, we developed a model of HPV transmission and cervical cancer incidence that incorporates state-specific demographic dynamics, sexual behavior, and migratory patterns. At the national level, the nonavalent vaccine was shown to be cost-effective compared with the bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines at any coverage despite the greater per-dose cost of the new vaccine. Furthermore, the nonavalent vaccine remains cost-effective with up to an additional 40% coverage of the adolescent population, representing 80% of girls and 62% of boys. We find that expansion of coverage would have the greatest health impact in states with the lowest coverage because of the decreasing marginal returns of herd immunity. Our results show that if policies promoting nonavalent vaccine implementation and expansion of coverage are coordinated across multiple states, all states benefit both in health and in economic terms.

Related collections

Most cited references 39

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer.

Marc Arbyn, Guglielmo Ronco, Ahti Anttila … (2012)

More than ever, clinicians need regularly updated reviews given the continuously increasing amount of new information regarding innovative cervical cancer prevention methods. A summary is given from recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews on 3 possible clinical applications of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing: triage of women with equivocal or low-grade cytologic abnormalities; prediction of the therapeutic outcome after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions, and last not but not least, primary screening for cervical cancer and pre-cancer. Consistent evidence is available indicating that HPV-triage with the Hybrid Capture(®) 2 assay (Qiagen Gaithersburg, Inc., MD, USA [previously Digene Corp.] (HC2) is more accurate (higher sensitivity, similar specificity) than repeat cytology to triage women with equivocal Pap smear results. Several other tests show at least similar accuracy but mRNA testing with the APTIMA(®) (Gen-Probe Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) test is similarly sensitive but more specific compared to HC2. In triage of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL), HC2 is more sensitive but its specificity is substantially lower compared to repeat cytology. The APTIMA(®) test is more specific than HC2 without showing a loss in sensitivity. Identification of DNA of HPV types 16 and/or 18, or RNA from the five most carcinogenic HPV types allow selecting women at highest risk for CIN3+ but the sensitivity and negative predictive value of these markers are lower than full-range high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing. After conservative treatment of cervical pre-cancer, HPV testing picks up more quickly, with higher sensitivity and not lower specificity, residual or recurrent high-grade CIN than follow-up cytology. Primary screening for hrHPV generally detects more CIN2, CIN3 or cancer compared to cytology at cut-off atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or LSIL, but is less specific. Combined HPV and cytology screening provides a further small gain in sensitivity at the expense of a considerable loss in specificity if positive by either test is referred to colposcopy, in comparison with HPV testing only. Randomised trials and follow-up of cohort studies consistently demonstrate a significantly lower cumulative incidence of CIN3+ and even of cancer, in women aged 30 years or older, who were at enrollment hrHPV DNA negative compared to those who were cytologically negative. The difference in cumulative risk of CIN3+ or cancer for double negative (cytology & HPV) versus only HPV-negative women is small. HC2, GP5+/6+ PCR (polymerase chain reaction), cobas(®) 4800 PCR (Roche Molecular Systems Inc., Alameda, CA, USA) and Real Time PCR (Abbott Molecular, Des Plaines, IL, USA) can be considered as clinically validated for use in primary screening. The loss in specificity associated with primary HPV-based screening can be compensated by appropriate algorithms involving reflex cytology and/or HPV genotyping for HPV16 or 18. There exists a substantial evidence base to support that HPV testing is advantageous both in triage of women with equivocal abnormal cytology, in surveillance after treatment of CIN lesions and in primary screening of women aged 30 years or older. However, the possible advantages offered by HPV-based screening require a well organised program with good compliance with screening and triage policies. This article forms part of a special supplement entitled "Comprehensive Control of HPV Infections and Related Diseases" Vaccine Volume 30, Supplement 5, 2012. Copyright © 2012 Marc Arbyn. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 287 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study.

Margaret RE McCredie, Katrina J. Sharples, Charlotte Paul … (2008)

The invasive potential of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 (CIN3; also termed stage 0 carcinoma) has been poorly defined. At the National Women's Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand, treatment of CIN3 was withheld from a substantial number of women between 1965 and 1974 as part of an unethical clinical study. The resulting variation in management allows comparison of the long-term risk of invasive cancer of the cervix in women whose lesion was minimally disturbed with those who had adequate initial treatment followed by conventional management. We aimed to estimate the long-term risk of invasive cancer in these two groups of women. A judicial inquiry referred for independent clinical review in 1988 all women for whom there remained doubt about the adequacy of their management. Between February, 2001, and December, 2004, medical records, cytology, and histopathology were reviewed for all women with CIN3 diagnosed between 1955 and 1976, whose treatment was reviewed by judicial inquiry and whose medical records could be located, and linkages were done with cancer and death registers and electoral rolls. To take into account the probability that the CIN3 lesion had been completely removed, we classified adequacy of treatment by type of procedure, presence of CIN3 at the excision margin, and subsequent cytology. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix or vaginal vault. Follow-up continued until death or Dec 31, 2000, whichever came first. Analyses accounted for procedures during follow-up. 1229 women whose treatment was reviewed by the judicial inquiry in 1987-88 were included. Of these, 48 records (4%) could not be located and 47 women (4%) did not meet the inclusion criteria. At histopathological review, a further 71 (6% of 1134) women were excluded because the review diagnosis was not CIN3. We identified outcomes in the remaining 1063 (86% of 1229) women diagnosed with CIN3 at the hospital in 1955-76. In 143 women managed only by punch or wedge biopsy, cumulative incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix or vaginal vault was 31.3% (95% CI 22.7-42.3) at 30 years, and 50.3% (37.3-64.9) in the subset of 92 such women who had persistent disease within 24 months. However, cancer risk at 30 years was only 0.7% (0.3-1.9) in 593 women whose initial treatment was deemed adequate or probably adequate, and whose treatment for recurrent disease was conventional. This study provides the most valid direct estimates yet available of the rate of progression from CIN3 to invasive cancer. Women with untreated CIN3 are at high risk of cervical cancer, whereas the risk is very low in women treated conventionally throughout.

0 comments Cited 282 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Cross-protective efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial.

Cosette M. Wheeler, Xavier Castellsagué, Suzanne Garland … (2012)

We evaluated the efficacy of the human papillomavirus HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types in the end-of-study analysis after 4 years of follow-up in PATRICIA (PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults). Healthy women aged 15-25 years with no more than six lifetime sexual partners were included in PATRICIA irrespective of their baseline HPV DNA status, HPV-16 or HPV-18 serostatus, or cytology. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to HPV-16/18 vaccine or a control hepatitis A vaccine, via an internet-based central randomisation system using a minimisation algorithm to account for age ranges and study sites. The study was double-blind. The primary endpoint of PATRICIA has been reported previously; the present analysis evaluates cross-protective vaccine efficacy against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types in the end-of-study analysis. Analyses were done for three cohorts: the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy (ATP-E; vaccine n=8067, control n=8047), total vaccinated HPV-naive cohort (TVC-naive; no evidence of infection with 14 oncogenic HPV types at baseline, approximating young adolescents before sexual debut; vaccine n=5824, control n=5820), and the total vaccinated cohort (TVC; all women who received at least one vaccine dose, approximating catch-up populations that include sexually active women; vaccine n=9319, control=9325). Vaccine efficacy was evaluated against 6-month persistent infection, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN2+) associated with 12 non-vaccine HPV types (individually or as composite endpoints), and CIN3+ associated with the composite of 12 non-vaccine HPV types. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00122681. Consistent vaccine efficacy against persistent infection and CIN2+ (with or without HPV-16/18 co-infection) was seen across cohorts for HPV-33, HPV-31, HPV-45, and HPV-51. In the most conservative analysis of vaccine efficacy against CIN2+, where all cases co-infected with HPV-16/18 were removed, vaccine efficacy was noted for HPV-33 in all cohorts, and for HPV-31 in the ATP-E and TVC-naive. Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with the composite of 12 non-vaccine HPV types (31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, and 68), with or without HPV-16/18 co-infection, was 46·8% (95% CI 30·7-59·4) in the ATP-E, 56·2% (37·2-69·9) in the TVC-naive, and 34·2% (20·4-45·8) in the TVC. Corresponding values for CIN3+ were 73·8% (48·3-87·9), 91·4% (65·0-99·0), and 47·5% (22·8-64·8). Data from the end-of-study analysis of PATRICIA show cross-protective efficacy of the HPV-16/18 vaccine against four oncogenic non-vaccine HPV types-HPV-33, HPV-31, HPV-45, and HPV-51-in different trial cohorts representing diverse groups of women. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.