Potential population-level effectiveness of one-dose HPV vaccination in low-income and middle-income countries: a mathematical modelling analysis.

backgroundGiven the accumulating evidence that one-dose vaccination could provide high and sustained protection against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and related diseases, we examined the population-level effectiveness and efficiency of one-dose HPV vaccination of girls compared with two-dose vaccination, using mathematical modelling.

methodsIn this mathematical modelling study, we used HPV-ADVISE LMIC, an individual-based transmission-dynamic model independently calibrated to four epidemiologically diverse low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs; India, Nigeria, Uganda, and Viet Nam). We parameterised and calibrated the model using sexual behaviour and epidemiological data identified from international population-based datasets and the literature. All base-case vaccination scenarios start in 2023 with the nonavalent vaccine and assumed 80% vaccination coverage with one or two doses. We assumed that two doses of vaccine provide 100% efficacy against vaccine-type infections and a lifelong duration of protection. We examined a non-inferior vaccination scenario for one dose compared with two doses, pessimistic scenarios of lower one-dose vaccine efficacy (85%) or a shorter duration of protection (ie, 20 or 30 years), and the effectiveness of a mitigation scenario in which schedules would switch from one dose to two doses. We also did sensitivity analyses by varying vaccination coverage. We used three outcomes: the relative reduction in cervical cancer incidence, the number of cervical cancers averted, and the number of vaccine doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer.

findingsAssuming non-inferior vaccine characteristics for one dose compared with two doses, the model projections show that two-dose or one-dose routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years (with a multi-age cohort vaccination of girls aged 10-14 years) would avert 12·0 million (80% UI 9·5-14·5) cervical cancers in India, 4·7 million (3·4-5·8) in Nigeria, 2·3 million (1·9-2·6) in Uganda, and 0·4 million (0·2-0·5) in Viet Nam over 100 years. Under pessimistic assumptions of lower one-dose efficacy (85%) or a shorter duration of protection (ie, 30 years), one-dose routine vaccination would avert 69% (61-80) to 94% (92-96) of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose routine vaccination. However, when assuming a duration of protection of 20 years, one-dose routine vaccination would avert substantially fewer cervical cancers (ie, 35% [26-44] to 69% [65-71] of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose routine vaccination). A switch from one-dose to two-dose routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years, with a one-dose catch-up of girls aged 10-14 years, 5 years after the start of the vaccination programme, could mitigate potential losses in cervical cancer prevention from a short one-dose duration of protection (averting 92% [83-98] to 99% [97-100]) of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose routine vaccination). One-dose routine vaccination would result in fewer doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer than two-dose routine vaccination, even if the duration of protection is as low as 20 years. Finally, for countries with two-dose routine vaccination, adding one-dose multi-age cohort vaccination in the first year would provide similar benefits as a two-dose multi-age cohort vaccination, and would be more efficient even under the pessimistic assumptions of lower one-dose vaccine efficacy or duration of protection.

interpretationOne-dose routine vaccination could avert most of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose vaccination while being more efficient, provided the duration of one-dose protection is greater than 20-30 years (depending on the LMIC). The doses saved by introducing one-dose routine vaccination could offer the opportunity to vaccinate girls before they age out of the vaccination window of 9-14 years and, potentially, to vaccinate boys or older age groups.

fundingFonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Digital Research Alliance of Canada, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.