Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34245682›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2021

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.

Mélanie Drolet, Jean-François Laprise, Dave Martin, Mark Jit, Élodie Bénard, Guillaume Gingras, Marie-Claude Boily, Michel Alary, Iacopo Baussano, Raymond Hutubessy and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Mélanie DroletCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Jean-François LapriseCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Dave MartinCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Mark JitCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Modelling and Economics Unit, Public Health England, London, UK; School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Élodie BénardCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Guillaume GingrasCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Marie-Claude BoilyCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Département de médecine sociale et preventive, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Michel AlaryCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Département de médecine sociale et preventive, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Québec City, QC, Canada.
Iacopo BaussanoInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Raymond HutubessyDepartment of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Marc BrissonCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Département de médecine sociale et preventive, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: marc.brisson@crchudequebec.ulaval.ca.
Université Laval · CACentre International de Recherche sur le Cancer · FRUniversity of Hong Kong · HKWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntroduction 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.

methodsIn 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.

findingsWe 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.

interpretationWe 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.

fundingWorld 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.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesImmunization ScheduleAdolescentAdultChildCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleModels, BiologicalPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaccinationYoung AdultPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID34245682
PMCPMC8554391
OpenAlexW3182032062

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.