Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36521952›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Global health2023

Potential benefit of extended dose schedules of human papillomavirus vaccination in the context of scarce resources and COVID-19 disruptions in low-income and middle-income countries: a mathematical modelling analysis.

Élodie Bénard, Mélanie Drolet, Jean-François Laprise, Mark Jit, Kiesha Prem, Marie-Claude Boily, Marc Brisson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Single-dose human papillomavirus vaccination: an update.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Élodie BénardDépartement de médecine sociale et préventive, Université Laval, QC, Canada; Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, QC, Canada.
Mélanie DroletCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, QC, Canada.
Jean-François LapriseCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, QC, Canada.
Mark JitCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Kiesha PremCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Marie-Claude BoilyDépartement de médecine sociale et préventive, Université Laval, QC, Canada; Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, QC, Canada; MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Marc BrissonDépartement de médecine sociale et préventive, Université Laval, QC, Canada; Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, QC, Canada; MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: marc.brisson@crchudequebec.ulaval.ca.
Centre hospitalier de l'Université Laval · CAUniversité Laval · CALondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBNational University Health System · SG

Funding

CIHR FDN-143283Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts recommended that an extended interval of 3-5 years between the two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine could be considered to alleviate vaccine supply shortages. However, three concerns have limited the introduction of extended schedules: girls could be infected between the two doses, the vaccination coverage for the second dose could be lower at ages 13-14 years than at ages 9-10 years, and identifying girls vaccinated with a first dose to give them the second dose could be difficult. Using mathematical modelling, we examined the potential effect of these concerns on the population-level impact and efficiency of extended dose HPV vaccination schedules.

methodsWe used HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based, transmission-dynamic model of multitype HPV infection and disease, calibrated to country-specific data for four low-income and middle-income countries (India, Viet Nam, Uganda, and Nigeria). For the extended dose scenarios, we varied the vaccination coverage of the second dose among girls previously vaccinated, the one-dose vaccine efficacy, and the one-dose vaccine duration of protection. We also examined a strategy in which girls aged 14 years were vaccinated irrespective of their previous vaccination status. We used a scenario of girls-only two-dose vaccination at age 9 years (vaccine=9 valent, vaccine-type efficacy=100%, duration of protection=lifetime, and coverage=80%) as our comparator. We estimated two outcomes: the relative reduction in the age-standardised cervical cancer incidence (population-level impact) and the number of cervical cancers averted per 100 000 doses (efficiency).

findingsOur model projected substantial reductions in cervical cancer incidence over 100 years with the two-dose schedule (79-86% depending on the country), compared with no vaccination. Projections for the 5-year extended schedule, in which the second dose is given only to girls previously vaccinated at age 9 years, were similar to the current two-dose schedule, unless vaccination coverage of the second dose is very low (reductions in cervical cancer incidence of 71-78% assuming 30% coverage at age 14 years among girls vaccinated at age 9 years). However, when the dose at age 14 years is given to girls irrespective of vaccination status and assuming high vaccination coverage, the model projected a substantially greater reduction in cervical cancer incidence compared with the current two-dose schedule (reductions in cervical cancer incidence of 86-93% assuming 70% coverage at age 14 years, irrespective of vaccination status). Efficiency of the extended schedule was greater than the two-dose schedule, even with a drop in vaccination coverage.

interpretationThe three concerns are unlikely to have a substantial effect on the population-level impact of extended dose schedules. Hence, extended dose schedules will likely provide similar cervical cancer reductions as two-dose schedules, while reducing the number of doses required in the short-term, providing a more efficient use of scarce resources, and offering a 5-year time window to reassess the necessity of the second dose.

fundingWHO, Canadian Institute of Health Research Foundation, Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Digital Research Alliance of Canada, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

COVID-19Papillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdolescentCanadaChildCost-Benefit AnalysisDeveloping CountriesFemaleHuman Papillomavirus VirusesHumansPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID36521952
PMCPMC9764452
OpenAlexW4311274112

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.