ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2013
A comparative analysis of the epidemiological impact and disease cost-savings of HPV vaccines in France.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- "A systematic literature review of the epidemiology, clinical, economic and humanistic burden in recurrent respiratory papillomatosis".Respiratory research · 2024Pooled it
- Methodological drivers, reporting completeness, and transferability in HPV vaccination economic evaluations: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- Communicating Benefits from Vaccines Beyond Preventing Infectious Diseases.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2020Review
- Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Two Different Two-Dose Human Papillomavirus Vaccines in MalaysiaAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018Article
- Developing Michigan Cancer Foundation 7 Cells with Stable Expression of E7 Gene of Human Papillomavirus Type 16.Iranian journal of pathology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim was to compare the epidemiological and economic impact of 16/18 bivalent and 6/11/16/18 quadrivalent HPV vaccination in France, considering differences in licensed outcomes, protection against non-vaccine HPV types and prevention of HPV-6/11-related diseases. The differential impact of the two vaccines was evaluated using a published model adapted to the French setting. The target population was females aged 14-23 y and the time horizon was 100 y. A total of eight different scenarios compared vaccination impact in terms of reduction in HPV-16/18-associated carcinomas (cervical, vulvar, vaginal, anal, penile and head and neck), HPV-6/11-related genital warts and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, and incremental reduction in cervical cancer due to potential cross-protection. Quadrivalent vaccine was associated with total discounted cost savings ranging from EUR 544-1,020 million vs. EUR 177-538 million with the bivalent vaccination (100-y time horizon). Genital wart prevention thanks to quadrivalent HPV vaccination accounted for EUR 306-380 million savings (37-56% of costs saved). In contrast, the maximal assumed cross-protection against cervical cancer resulted in EUR 13-33 million savings (4%). Prevention of vulvar, vaginal and anal cancers accounted for additional EUR 71-89 million savings (13%). In France, the quadrivalent HPV vaccination would result in significant incremental epidemiological and economic benefits vs. the bivalent vaccination, driven primarily by prevention of genital. The present analysis is the first in the French setting to consider the impact of HPV vaccination on all HPV diseases and non-vaccine types.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.