Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37635227›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2023

Global impact and cost-effectiveness of one-dose versus two-dose human papillomavirus vaccination schedules: a comparative modelling analysis.

Kiesha Prem, Yoon Hong Choi, Élodie Bénard, Emily A Burger, Liza Hadley, Jean-François Laprise, Mary Caroline Regan, Mélanie Drolet, Stephen Sy, Kaja Abbas and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.5field-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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Kiesha PremDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. kiesha.prem@lshtm.ac.uk.
Yoon Hong Choi *Modelling and Economics Unit, Data, Analytics and Surveillance, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Élodie Bénard *Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec - Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.
Emily A Burger *Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Liza HadleyDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Jean-François LapriseCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec - Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.
Mary Caroline ReganCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Mélanie DroletCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec - Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.
Stephen SyCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Kaja AbbasDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Allison PortnoyCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Jane J KimCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Marc BrissonCentre de recherche du CHU de Québec - Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.
Mark JitDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. mark.jit@lshtm.ac.uk.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversité Laval · CAUK Health Security Agency · GBUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

CIHR FDN-143283
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, the World Health Organization had recommended routine vaccination of adolescent girls with two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine before sexual initiation. However, many countries have yet to implement HPV vaccination because of financial or logistical barriers to delivering two doses outside the infant immunisation programme.

methodsUsing three independent HPV transmission models, we estimated the long-term health benefits and cost-effectiveness of one-dose versus two-dose HPV vaccination, in 188 countries, under scenarios in which one dose of the vaccine gives either a shorter duration of full protection (20 or 30 years) or lifelong protection but lower vaccine efficacy (e.g. 80%) compared to two doses. We simulated routine vaccination with the 9-valent HPV vaccine in 10-year-old girls at 80% coverage for the years 2021-2120, with a 1-year catch-up campaign up to age 14 at 80% coverage in the first year of the programme.

resultsOver the years 2021-2120, one-dose vaccination at 80% coverage was projected to avert 115.2 million (range of medians: 85.1-130.4) and 146.8 million (114.1-161.6) cervical cancers assuming one dose of the vaccine confers 20 and 30 years of protection, respectively. Should one dose of the vaccine provide lifelong protection at 80% vaccine efficacy, 147.8 million (140.6-169.7) cervical cancer cases could be prevented. If protection wanes after 20 years, 65 to 889 additional girls would need to be vaccinated with the second dose to prevent one cervical cancer, depending on the epidemiological profiles of the country. Across all income groups, the threshold cost for the second dose was low: from 1.59 (0.14-3.82) USD in low-income countries to 44.83 (3.75-85.64) USD in high-income countries, assuming one dose confers 30-year protection.

conclusionsResults were consistent across the three independent models and suggest that one-dose vaccination has similar health benefits to a two-dose programme while simplifying vaccine delivery, reducing costs, and alleviating vaccine supply constraints. The second dose may become cost-effective if there is a shorter duration of protection from one dose, cheaper vaccine and vaccination delivery strategies, and high burden of cervical cancer.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdolescentChildCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHuman Papillomavirus VirusesHumansInfantVaccinationPapillomavirus VaccinesCervical cancerHuman papillomavirusModellingSingle doseVaccination

Identifiers

PMID37635227
PMCPMC10463590
OpenAlexW4386200657

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.