ArticleBMC medicine2025
Projected health and economic effects of nonavalent versus bivalent human papillomavirus vaccination in preadolescence in the Netherlands.
Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMost European countries offer human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination through organised immunisation programmes, but the choice of vaccine varies. We compared the expected health and economic effects of the currently used bivalent vaccine, targeting HPV-16/18, and the nonavalent vaccine, targeting seven additional genotypes, for the Netherlands.
methodsWe estimated the incremental impact of nonavalent versus bivalent vaccination in a cohort of 100,000 girls and 100,000 boys offered vaccination at age 10, by projecting type-specific infection risk reductions onto expected number of cervical screening outcomes, HPV-related cancers, and treatments for anogenital warts and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP). In the base-case, we assumed two-dose vaccination with 60% uptake, lifelong partial cross-protection against HPV-31/33/45 for the bivalent vaccine and EUR 25 extra cost per dose for the nonavalent vaccine. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a healthcare provider perspective by comparing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per life-year gained (LYG) with the Dutch threshold of EUR 20,000/LYG.
resultsCompared with bivalent vaccination, nonavalent vaccination prevents an additional 1320 high-grade cervical lesions, 70 cancers, 34,000 anogenital warts episodes and 30 RRPs and generates EUR 4.1 million discounted savings from fewer treatments. The ICER is EUR 5489 (95% credible interval: 3765; 7019)/LYG in the base-case and exceeds the cost-effectiveness threshold only if the cross-protection for the bivalent vaccine extends permanently to non-31/33/45 genotypes or if the vaccine efficacy wanes past age 20 for both vaccines.
conclusionsSex-neutral vaccination with the nonavalent vaccine is likely to be cost-effective. Long-term monitoring of type-specific vaccine effectiveness is essential because of the impact of cross-protection and waning efficacy on cost-effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.