Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26652918›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2015

Cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus vaccination in South Africa accounting for human immunodeficiency virus prevalence.

Xiao Li, Martinus P Stander, Georges Van Kriekinge, Nadia Demarteau

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Cancer prevention: cervical cancer.Ecancermedicalscience · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Malignancies in women with HIV infection.Current opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiao LiHealth Economics, GSK Vaccines, Avenue Fleming 20, 1300, Wavre, Belgium. xiao.x.li@gsk.com.
Martinus P StanderHealth Economic Research, HEXOR (Pty) Ltd, Block J, Central Park, 400 16th Road, Midrand, Republic of South Africa. tienies@hexor.co.za.
Georges Van KriekingeHealth Economics, GSK Vaccines, Avenue Fleming 20, 1300, Wavre, Belgium. georges.m.van-kriekinge@gsk.com.
Nadia DemarteauHealth Economics, GSK Vaccines, Avenue Fleming 20, 1300, Wavre, Belgium. nadia.x.demarteau@gsk.com.
GlaxoSmithKline (Belgium) · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aims at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of a 2-dose schedule human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme of HPV and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) naïve 12-year-old girls, in addition to cervical cancer (CC) screening alone, in South Africa. The study aims to account for both the impact of the vaccine among girls who are HIV-positive (HIV+) as well as HIV-negative (HIV-) population.

methodsA previously published Markov cohort model was adapted to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of a HPV vaccination programme in girls aged 12 years (N = 527 900) using the AS04-adjuvanted HPV-16/18 vaccine from a public payer perspective. Two subpopulations were considered: HIV- and HIV+ women. Each population followed the HPV natural history with different transition probabilities. Model input data were obtained from the literature, local databases and Delphi panel. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5 %. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the evaluation.

resultsImplementation of the AS04-adjuvanted HPV-16/18 vaccine in combination with current cytological screening in South African girls could prevent up to 8 869 CC cases and 5 436 CC deaths over the lifetime of a single cohort. Without discounting, this HPV vaccine is dominant over screening alone; with discounting, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is ZAR 81 978 (South African Rand) per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. HPV vaccination can be considered cost-effective based on World Health Organization (WHO) recommended threshold (3 x gross domestic product/capita = ZAR 200 293). In a scenario with a hypothetical targeted vaccination in a HIV+ subpopulation alone, the modelled outcomes suggest that HPV vaccination is still cost-effective, although the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio increases to ZAR 102 479. Results were sensitive to discount rate, vaccine efficacy, HIV incidence and mortality rates, and HPV-related disease transition probabilities.

conclusionsThe AS04-adjuvanted HPV-16/18 vaccine can be considered cost-effective in a South African context although the cost-effectiveness is expected to be lower in the HIV+ subpopulation than in the overall female population. With improved access to HIV treatment, the HIV mortality and incidence rates are likely to be reduced, which could improve cost-effectiveness of the vaccination programme in South Africa.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisModels, TheoreticalAdjuvants, ImmunologicChildFemaleHIV InfectionsHuman papillomavirus 16Human papillomavirus 18HumansIncidenceMarkov ChainsPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesPrevalenceSouth AfricaSurvival RateAdjuvants, ImmunologicPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID26652918
PMCPMC4676856
OpenAlexW2194400390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.