| Abstract: | ObjectiveTo compare costs and effectiveness of three strategies used against cervical cancer (CC) and genital warts: (i) Screening for CC; (ii) Bivalent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18 vaccine added to screening; (iii) Quadrivalent HPV 6/11/16/18 vaccine added to screening. MethodsA Markov model was designed in order to simulate the natural history of the disease from 12 years of age (vaccination) until death. Transition probabilities were selected or adjusted to match the HPV infection profile in Colombia. A systematic review was undertaken in order to derive efficacy values for the two vaccines as well as for the operational characteristics of the cytology test. The societal perspective was used. Effectiveness was measured in number of averted Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYS). ResultsAt commercial prices reported for 2010 the two vaccines were shown to be non-cost-effective alternatives when compared with the existing screening strategy. Sensitivity analyses showed that results are affected by the cost of vaccines and their efficacy values, making it difficult to determine with certainty which of the two vaccines has the best cost-effectiveness profile. To be ‘cost-effective’ vaccines should cost between 141 and 147 USD (Unite States Dollars) per vaccinated girl at the most. But at lower prices such as those recommended by WHO or the price of other vaccines in Colombia, HPV vaccination could be considered very cost-effective.ConclusionsHPV vaccination could be a convenient alternative for the prevention of CC in Colombia. However, the price of the vaccine should be lower for this vaccination strategy to be cost-effective. It is also important to take into consideration the willingness to pay, budgetary impact, and program implications, in order to determine the relevance of a vaccination program in this country, as well as which vaccine should be selected for use in the program. |
