This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
Inclusion of the benefits of enhanced cross-protection against cervical cancer and prevention of genital warts in the cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus vaccination in the Netherlands
© Westra et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 22 May 2012
Accepted: 25 January 2013
Published: 7 February 2013
Infection with HPV 16 and 18, the major causative agents of cervical cancer, can be prevented through vaccination with a bivalent or quadrivalent vaccine. Both vaccines provide cross-protection against HPV-types not included in the vaccines. In particular, the bivalent vaccine provides additional protection against HPV 31, 33, and 45 and the quadrivalent vaccine against HPV31. The quadrivalent vaccine additionally protects against low-risk HPV type 6 and 11, responsible for most cases of genital warts. In this study, we made an analytical comparison of the two vaccines in terms of cost-effectiveness including the additional benefits of cross-protection and protection against genital warts in comparison with a screening-only strategy.
We used a Markov model, simulating the progression from HPV infection to cervical cancer or genital warts. The model was used to estimate the difference in future costs and health effects of both HPV-vaccines separately.
In a cohort of 100,000 women, use of the bivalent or quadrivalent vaccine (both at 50% vaccination coverage) reduces the cervical cancer incidence by 221 and 207 cases, corresponding to ICERs of €17,600/QALY and €18,900/QALY, respectively. It was estimated that the quadrivalent vaccine additionally prevents 4390 cases of genital warts, reducing the ICER to €16,300/QALY. Assuming a comparable willingness to pay for cancer and genital warts prevention, the difference in ICERs could justify a slightly higher price (~7% per dose) in favor of the quadrivalent vaccine.
Clearly, HPV vaccination has been implemented for the prevention of cervical cancer. From this perspective, use of the bivalent HPV vaccine appears to be most effective and cost-effective. Including the benefits of prevention against genital warts, the ICER of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine was found to be slightly more favourable. However, current decision-making on the introduction of HPV is driven by the primary cervical cancer outcome. New vaccine tenders could consider the benefits of cross-protection and the benefits of genital warts, which requires more balanced decision-making.
Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide. It is caused by persistent infection with high-risk Human Papillomavirus (HPV) . In Europe, two prophylactic HPV vaccines are available, a bivalent and a quadrivalent vaccine. The bivalent ASO4-adjuvanted vaccine (“Cervarix”; GlaxoSmithKline) provides protection against infection with HPV16 and 18. The quadrivalent amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate adjuvanted vaccine (“Gardasil” or “Silgard”; sanofi pasteur/Merck Sharp & Dohme), also protects against HPV 6 and 11, in addition to HPV16 and 18. HPV16 and 18 are the two major oncogenic HPV types and are responsible for approximately 70% of cervical cancer cases worldwide . HPV6 and 11 are low-risk HPV types; these viruses are responsible for most of the cases of genital warts . Obviously, the choice of which vaccine to use will depend on various factors, including the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of the vaccines.
In the Netherlands, the decision of implementing HPV vaccination in the context of the National Immunization Program (NIP) has been based on the prevention of cervical cancer followed by a vaccine tender offered by the two pharmaceutical companies. Although, in the context of the Dutch drug reimbursement system, the cost of the vaccination – for both vaccines – is listed at €105 per dose, substantial price reductions are likely to be granted by the vaccine manufacturers. Therefore the predominant focus is on the actual price of the vaccines, and relevant clinical differences between both vaccines are not taken into account. These differences relate to the vaccines’ cross-protective efficacies against other, non-vaccine, high-risk HPV types and the protection against genital warts [4–6]. We argue that the decision of which vaccine to use within a country-specific immunization program should be made by taking these differences explicitly into account. In particular, the willingness-to-pay for cancer and genital warts might differ and can as such influence the acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio.
In the Netherlands, approximately 600 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed annually. Furthermore, the incidence of genital warts is estimated at approximately 85.8 and 121.6 per 100,000 among men and women, respectively . Previously, several studies have estimated that the implementation of HPV vaccination for Dutch teenage girls, at 12 years of age, is a cost-effective intervention at around €20,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained [8–12]. This was estimated irrespective of which specific vaccine was used . The present paper aims to determine the costs and health outcomes of HPV vaccination of 12-year-old girls for both vaccines individually, considering not only the benefits of preventing cervical cancer but also those of preventing genital warts, in the context of the current cervical cancer screening program. In particular, the clinical benefits and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for both vaccines were estimated. Also, the price difference between both vaccines was estimated to achieve equal ICERs. Note that several governments, including the Dutch and UK governments,, initially did not consider the potential benefits of protection against genital warts in their decision which vaccine to choose and thus the HPV vaccine was introduced only on the basis of the prevention of cervical cancer.
Epidemiologic and economic parameters used in the model
6 month transition probabilities*
Mean and/or range
Normal to HPV 6/11¥
0 – 0.007
Normal to lrHPV¥
0 – 0.04
HPV 6/11 to warts
lrHPV to warts
Natural clearance HPV infection
Natural clearance genital warts
Treatment costs cancer
Cervical cancer stage 1
Cervical cancer stage 2
Cervical cancer stage 3
Cervical cancer stage 4
Treatment costs warts
GP + STI clini
Cervical cancer stage 1
Cervical cancer stage 2
Cervical cancer stage 3
Cervical cancer stage 4
Efficacy HPV 16/18
Efficacy HPV 6/11
Cross-protection HPV 31
Cross-protection HPV 33
Cross-protection HPV 45
Duration of protection
Vaccination costs per dose
Average annual age-specific number of reported genital warts cases (2002-2007) in women by GP or STI clinic 
10 – 14
15 – 19
20 – 24
25 – 29
30 – 34
35 – 39
40 – 44
45 – 49
50 – 54
Burden of disease
Table 2 gives an overview of the age-specific numbers of reported cases of genital warts in women treated by GPs and STI-clinics, annually. In the Netherlands, the incidence of genital warts in the total female and male population is on average approximately 11,500 and 8,100 annually, respectively . Of these cases approximately 9% are treated in clinics for sexually-transmitted infections.
No direct coherent Dutch data are available about the treatment costs of genital warts and the quality of life during an episode of genital warts. Therefore, costs were estimated from different sources, including national databases, literature and expert opinions . The medical costs include general practitioner (GP) visits, specialist visits, treatment costs and pharmacists’ fees. The utility losses of genital warts were adapted from literature .
Detailed build-up of the average per female patient treatment costs of genital warts
Unit costs (€)
STI clinic (€)
GP + STI clinic (€)
Total direct costs
Estimates of the costs and QALYs, for the different (pre-)cancer stages, were adapted from our previous publication (Table 1) . For incidence data, treatment costs and quality-of-life estimates for cervical cancer and pre-cancer stages, we refer to our previous publication .
The bivalent as well as the quadrivalent HPV vaccine shows a high efficacy against infection with HPV16 and 18, the virus types included in both vaccines. In line with our previous studies, we conservatively assumed a 95% efficacy against HPV16 and HPV18 infection for both vaccines . Furthermore, both vaccines induce cross-protection against other oncogenic HPV-types [4, 5, 22–24]. Since the bivalent vaccine induces a higher degree of cross-protection than the quadrivalent vaccine (Table 1), vaccine-specific cross-protection efficacies were explicitly taken into account. Finally, it was assumed, that both vaccines induce lifelong protection . Total vaccination costs were set at €315 per vaccinated woman (including 3 doses and administration costs). Note that relevant lower vaccine prices are paid within the Dutch NIP, and probably also in other national immunization programmes, after tendering. Therefore, vaccination costs were reduced in sensitivity analysis. No utility losses due to side effects were considered.
Differences in costs and effects were estimated by following a cohort (100,000 women) during life twice, once as a partly (e.g. 50%) vaccinated (bivalent or quadrivalent) cohort and once as an unvaccinated cohort. For all situations it was assumed that 90% of all women attend the current Dutch cervical cancer screening program at least once during life according to the “pre-vaccine-era” 5-yearly compliance rate of 80%. No changes in the screening program structure or compliance rates were assumed for the vaccinated cohort. The model tracks the total number of cases (e.g. cervical cancer, cervical premaligancies, and genital warts), costs, life-years (LY) gained and changes in QALYs. By summing up all the costs, LY gained or QALYs, the net costs, LYs and QALYs gained/lost were determined for both options. Subsequently, the difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohort was determined. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by dividing the incremental costs by the incremental LY or QALYs gained. In the Netherlands, interventions with an ICER below €20,000 per QALY gained are generally considered as being cost-effective. Future costs and health effects were discounted at 4% and 1.5%, respectively, reflecting the Dutch guidelines for cost-effectiveness research . Furthermore, to enhance the transferability of our base-case findings to other countries, we also performed sensitivity analyses at costs and health outcomes discount rates of both 3%. Finally, the vaccine prices of the vaccines were varied to achieve equal ICERs for both.
The robustness of the outcomes were analyzed in univariate sensitivity analyses. As there is uncertainty about the duration of vaccine-induce protection, vaccine price, cross-protection, and the treatment costs of genital warts, these parameters values were varied in univariate sensitivity analyses. To provide insight in the impact of possible additional herd-immunity benefits on our findings a certain degree of herd-immunity was incorporated in our model. In particular, based on a previous study of Bogaards et al., we estimated a relative risk reduction among unvaccinated women for developing cervical cancer of 33%, aligning a 50% vaccine uptake . This risk reduction was applied to both the unvaccinated male and female populations for both cervical cancer and genital warts. As the herd-immunity benefit is highly sensitive to the vaccination coverage, these benefits were estimated for different coverages; i.e. for 50%, 70% and 90% coverage, the relative risk reductions were estimated at 33%, 55% and 84%, respectively. Finally, to enhance the transferability of our finding to other countries the discount rate and screening compliance was varied in sensitivity analyses. As the Netherlands and Belgium are unique in discounting health effects with a lower rate compared to costs, the discount rates for both health effects and costs were also varied independently in the sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, in the Netherlands 90% of women are screened at least once during life. Compared to other countries this is a relative high coverage and therefore we decreased this coverage to 70%, 50% and 30% in sensitivity analysis.
In addition to the impact of the above parameters on the estimated ICER, we also determined the price difference between the two vaccines under conditions of equal ICERs, not only for the base case, but also for the different options analyzed in the sensitivity analyses.
Introduction of HPV vaccination for 12-year-old girls in the model, at a 50% vaccination coverage reduces the annual HPV16/18-related cervical cancer incidence by 198 cases, independent of which vaccine is used. Due to the benefits of cross-protection , the bivalent vaccine will prevent 23 cases of cervical cancer induced by one of the other high-risk HPV types while, due to a lower level of cross-protection  thusfar documented, the quadrivalent vaccine will prevent 9 cases due to cross-protection. So, in total we estimated that the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccine prevent 221 and 207 cases of cervical cancer, respectively. Furthermore, both vaccines will prevent cervical premalignancies, the bivalent vaccine 106 CIN1, 203 CIN2 and 264 CIN3, and the quadrivalent vaccine 91 CIN1, 182 CIN2 and 237 CIN3. In addition, the quadrivalent vaccine will prevent annually 4,390 cases of genital warts.
Cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination
Notably, 1,524 (646 if discounted) or 1,430 (606 if discounted) life years will be gained when the bivalent or quadrivalent HPV vaccine are being used, respectively. When all the above health benefits are taken together, in total 1,815 (790 if discounted) or 1,803 (824 if discounted) QALYs are estimated to be gained by using the bivalent or the quadrivalent vaccine, respectively. In particular, for the bivalent vaccine 709 discounted QALYs are gained by providing protection against HPV16/18-induced cervical (pre-)malignancies and 81 discounted QALYs are gained due to cross-protection. For the quadrivalent vaccine, 709, 33 and 82 discounted QALYs are gained due to protection against HPV16/18-induced (pre-)malignancies, cross-protection and prevention of genital warts, respectively. Furthermore, vaccination with the bivalent vaccine results in a discounted cost-saving of €1,641,000 by providing protection against HPV16/18-induced (pre-)malignancies and discounted cost-saving of €211,000 due to cross-protection. The quadrivalent vaccine results in discounted cost-savings of €1,641,000, €84,000 and €570,000 due to protection against HPV16/18-induced (pre-)malignancies, cross-protection, and prevention of genital warts, respectively. The total vaccination costs are estimated at €15M per year in the Netherlands.
Considering only the benefits of prevention of HPV16/18-related disease, the ICER was estimated at €19,900 per QALY or €24,300 per LY gained (€41,900/QALY or €52,800/LY if discounted at 3%). When the benefits of cross-protection and protection against genital warts are taken into account, the ICER of the bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines were estimated at €17,600 per QALY or €21,500 per LY gained (€36,900/QALY or €46,500/LY if discounted at 3%) and €16,300 per QALY or €22,700 per LY gained (€31,800/QALY or €49,600/LY if discounted at 3%), respectively.
Price differential between the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccine
In settings with a moderate or poor screening program the estimated ICER was more driven by the health gains of providing protection against cervical cancer. Consequently, the price differential diminishes in settings with a higher burden of cervical cancer, often accompanying a relatively poor screening program (Figure 4).
There are three scenarios in which the bivalent vaccine may have a higher price compared to the quadrivalent vaccine to be equally cost-effective. These scenarios include the conditions in which (i) only LY gained are considered, (ii) the quadrivalent vaccine provides a shorter duration of protection, and (iii) prevention of genital warts are not taken into account.
Currently, there are two registered prophylactic HPV vaccines, a bivalent vaccine and a quadrivalent vaccine. To decide which vaccine could best be used in countries’ national immunization programs, an analytical comparison in terms of cost-effectiveness between both vaccines is required. Accordingly, the primary aim of the current study was to make a specific comparison between the bivalent and the quadrivalent HPV vaccines, taking the specific characteristics of both vaccines explicitly into account. These include not only the benefits of protection against HPV16 and 18, but also those of cross-protection against other high-risk HPV types and, for the low-risk HPV types, protection against genital warts. Note that, although differences in immunogenicity between both vaccines have been reported , the clinical relevance of this has not been demonstrated yet. Even though we conducted the study for the situation in the Netherlands, the general conclusions of our analyses are likely to apply, with minor modifications, to other European countries and the USA, because of strong similarities in HPV prevalence and implementation of prophylactic vaccination programs in these countries.
From our base-case analyses, it follows that use of the bivalent HPV vaccine gives the highest reduction in cervical cancer incidence. Consequently, the highest number of life-years gained was obtained by implementing the bivalent vaccine, resulting in a more favourable ICER compared to that obtained with the quadriavalent vaccine (€21,500/LYG vs €22,700/LYG). This implies that the bivalent vaccine might be €2.80 more expensive if only LYs are considered. Considering QALYs gained on the basis of protection against (pre-)cervical malignancies and genital warts, the quadrivalent vaccine provided the highest health gain. The ICER of the quadrivalent vaccine was estimated to be more favourable than that of the bivalent vaccine at €16,300/QALY gained vs. €17,600/QALY. This implies that the quadrivalent vaccine can be approximately €7 per dose (based at a list price of €105/dose) more expensive than the bivalent vaccine to be equally cost-effective.
The ICERs of both vaccines were found to be particularly sensitive to the vaccine price (range: €5,600 - 17,600/QALY), the duration of protection (range: €16,300 - 48,900/QALY), the discount rate for health benefits (range: €5,300 - 97,100/QALY) and, to herd-immunity benefits (range: €10,700 - 17,600/QALY). In most scenarios, the ICER (€/QALY) of the quadrivalent vaccine remained more favourable than that of the bivalent vaccine. This difference, as argued above, may justify a slightly higher vaccine price for the quadrivalent vaccine. Interestingly, without discounting, the bivalent vaccine results in a slightly higher QALY gain than the quadrivalent vaccine, despite the benefits in terms of prevention of genital warts of the latter. This illustrates that the health gains of prevention of cervical cancer prevention are highly sensitive to the discount rate applied. Furthermore, it is important to note that the acceptable price differential between both vaccines highly depends on the vaccine price applied for the reference vaccine. In particular, in the base-case (bivalent vaccination costs was €105/dose), the price differential was estimated at €7 per dose. Reducing the vaccination costs of the bivalent vaccine to, for example, €45 per dose, the price differential decreases to €4. Possible lower vaccine costs will further reduce the price differential between both vaccines. Inclusion of additional herd-immunity benefits resulted in an increased price difference between both vaccines primarily due to the benefits of providing indirect protection against genital warts in males. Interestingly, the absolute herd-immunity benefit in females will be highest if vaccine coverage is moderate, while in males the herd-immunity benefit will highest when vaccine uptake is high.
In our study, the indirect effects could not be directly considered as a static model was used. The use of static models for infectious disease modelling has been criticised by us and others [28–30]. However, in balancing complexity and transparency, static models are still of major importance and can be used for initial assessments. Here, we included the potential herd-immunity benefits based on a previous Dutch modelling study . Further research should be directed to develop a dynamic transmission model including the most important high- and low-risk HPV types. Another limitation of the current study is that potential additional health benefits of providing protection against other than cervical cancers were not included. The inclusion of these cancers will further improve the ICER for both vaccines. Consequently, price differentials between both vaccines might diminish , as the benefit of providing protection against genital warts will play a less prominent role. Finally, we did not perform any probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). The use of PSA is highly recommended as it provides some insight in the certainty of the outcomes. However, comparing the PSAs of different vaccines is rather critical as potentially a highly favourable option (upper limit 95% confidence interval) of one vaccine is compared with a rather unfavourable option (lower limit 95% confidence interval) of the other vaccine. For that reason we currently didn’t embark on a formal PSA, but rather performed an extensive deterministic sensitivity analysis.
Our results are generally in line with the findings of others. In particular, several studies estimated that the bivalent HPV vaccine resulted in the highest reduction in cervical cancer incidence due to the additional benefits of cross-protection [28, 30]. However, as only the quadrivalent vaccine provides protection against genital warts, the decision which vaccine to use is not that straightforward. From a health-economic perspective, the most cost-effective vaccine should be preferred considering both the health gains of providing protection against cervical cancer and genital warts. Several studies made this type of comparison between both vaccines [25–28]. Here, we estimated that a €6.70 (7%) price differential, in favour of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, resulted in equal ICERs. This justifiable price difference between both vaccines estimated in the present study is slightly different from that found in other studies . For example, Jit et al. estimated that the bivalent vaccine should be approximately 25% less expensive . Indeed, even larger discrepancies have been reported [31, 33]. The difference between our study and those of others can be explained by various factors. Firstly, as mentioned above, we used a static model in which herd-immunity benefits are not directly taken into account. As indicate above, inclusion of herd-immunity benefits results in an increased price difference (e.g., the price difference reaches a maximum of approximately 16% when herd-immunity is taken into account). Secondly, we included vaccine-specific cross-protection against high-risk HPVs in our analyses. As there is evidence that the bivalent vaccine is more cross-protective than the quadrivalent vaccine [5, 6], this results in a smaller price difference. Finally, according to health-economic guidelines in the Netherlands, future health benefits are discounted with a relatively low discount rate of 1.5%, and therefore, the health benefits of cervical cancer are devalued less than in most other countries. Nevertheless, in general we can conclude that in western countries a higher vaccine price for the quadrivalent vaccine is justified due to the additional benefits of providing protection against genital warts.
In contrast, Demarteau et al. estimated that for Taiwan a higher vaccine price for the bivalent vaccine is justified . The difference between this study and the studies performed in western countries can be primarily explained by the higher incidence of cervical cancer in Taiwan. Due to the potentially higher effectiveness of the bivalent vaccine in providing protection against cervical cancer a relevantly higher health gain might be obtained in settings with a high burden of cervical cancer. In most western countries the burden of cervical cancer has already been dramatically reduced since the introduction of cervical cancer screening. Consequently, in these settings the benefits of providing protection against genital warts are predominant and the ICER of the quadrivalent vaccine is even more sensitive to the inclusion of the benefits of providing protection against genital warts than found in our study. This illustrates that the decision which vaccine to use on health-economic grounds will highly depend on the disease burden of cervical cancer versus the burden of genital warts.
In conclusion, the results of our study demonstrate that HPV vaccination is a cost-effective intervention in the Netherlands. Clearly, HPV vaccination has been implemented for the prevention of cervical cancer. From this perspective, use of the bivalent HPV vaccine appears to be most effective and most cost-effective in prevention of cervical cancer. This is primarily due to the broader cross-protective capacity of the bivalent vaccine, compared to the quadrivalent vaccine, against high-risk HPV types not included in the vaccines. However, if the potential benefits of providing protection against genital warts are considered, another decision might be made. From a health economic perspective, a coherent analytic comparison of the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines could be made and to consider costs and benefits of cross-protection against other high-risk HPV types not included in the vaccines as well as those of protection against genital warts. From a health care decision-making perspective, these analyses – next to other criteria – can then be compared to the initial intention of cancer prevention underlying introduction of the vaccination in local national vaccination programs. This will then provide a more balanced view than cost-comparison alone.
The authors do not have any potential conflict of interest. This work benefited from an unrestricted education grant from GlaxoSmithKline. In addition, TAW and MJP are recipients of travel grants from GlaxoSmithKline. Currently, TAW works for GlaxoSmithKline, Zeist Netherlands.
This work benefited from an unrestricted education grant from GlaxoSmithKline. The authors’ work was independent of the funders, who had no role in the study design, analysis of data, writing of the manuscript or decision to submit for publication.
The work has not been previously published or presented at a conference.
- Scarinci IC, Garcia FA, Kobetz E, Partridge EE, Brandt HM, Bell MC, Dignan M, Ma GX, Daye JL, Castle PE: Cervical cancer prevention: new tools and old barriers. Cancer. 2010, 116 (11): 2531-2542.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, Rodriguez AC, Wacholder S: Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet. 2007, 370 (9590): 890-907. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61416-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chan PK, Luk AC, Luk TN, Lee KF, Cheung JL, Ho KM, Lo KK: Distribution of human papillomavirus types in anogenital warts of men. J Clin Virol. 2009, 44 (2): 111-114. 10.1016/j.jcv.2008.11.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Paavonen J, Naud P, Salmeron J, Wheeler CM, Chow SN, Apter D, Kitchener H, Castellsague X, Teixeira JC, Skinner SR, et al: Efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by oncogenic HPV types (PATRICIA): final analysis of a double-blind, randomised study in young women. Lancet. 2009, 374 (9686): 301-314. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61248-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wheeler CM, Kjaer SK, Sigurdsson K, Iversen OE, Hernandez-Avila M, Perez G, Brown DR, Koutsky LA, Tay EH, Garcia P, et al: The impact of quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV; types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine on infection and disease due to oncogenic nonvaccine HPV types in sexually active women aged 16-26 years. J Infect Dis. 2009, 199 (7): 936-944. 10.1086/597309.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Szarewski A: Prophylactic HPV vaccines. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2007, 28 (3): 165-169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- van den Broek IV, Verheij RA, van Dijk CE, Koedijk FD, van der Sande MA, van Bergen JE: Trends in sexually transmitted infections in the Netherlands, combining surveillance data from general practices and sexually transmitted infection centers. BMC Fam Pract. 2010, 11: 39-10.1186/1471-2296-11-39.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Bogaards JA, Coupe VM, Xiridou M, Meijer CJ, Wallinga J, Berkhof J: Long-term impact of human papillomavirus vaccination on infection rates, cervical abnormalities, and cancer incidence. Epidemiology. 2011, 22 (4): 505-515. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31821d107b.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Coupe VM, van Ginkel J, de Melker HE, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ, Berkhof J: HPV16/18 vaccination to prevent cervical cancer in The Netherlands: model-based cost-effectiveness. Int J Cancer. 2009, 124 (4): 970-978. 10.1002/ijc.24000.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- de Kok IM, van Ballegooijen M, Habbema JD: Cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus vaccination in the Netherlands. J Natl Canc Inst. 2009, 101 (15): 1083-1092. 10.1093/jnci/djp183.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rogoza RM, Westra TA, Ferko N, Tamminga JJ, Drummond MF, Daemen T, Wilschut JC, Postma MJ: Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic vaccination against human papillomavirus 16/18 for the prevention of cervical cancer: adaptation of an existing cohort model to the situation in the Netherlands. Vaccine. 2009, 27 (35): 4776-4783. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.05.085.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Westra TA, Rozenbaum MH, Rogoza RM, Nijman HW, Daemen T, Postma MJ, Wilschut JC: Until which age should women be vaccinated against HPV infection? Recommendation based on cost-effectiveness analyses. J Infect Dis. 2011, 204 (3): 377-384. 10.1093/infdis/jir281.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Westra TA, Daemen T, Postma MJ, Wilschut JC: [Efficiency of human papillomavirus vaccination-estimates based on Dutch cost effectiveness analyses]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2009, 153: A356-PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Insinga RP, Dasbach EJ, Elbasha EH: Epidemiologic natural history and clinical management of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Disease: a critical and systematic review of the literature in the development of an HPV dynamic transmission model. BMC Infect Dis. 2009, 9: 119-10.1186/1471-2334-9-119.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Jacobs MV, Walboomers JM, Snijders PJ, Voorhorst FJ, Verheijen RH, Fransen-Daalmeijer N, Meijer CJ: Distribution of 37 mucosotropic HPV types in women with cytologically normal cervical smears: the age-related patterns for high-risk and low-risk types. Int J Cancer. 2000, 87 (2): 221-227. 10.1002/1097-0215(20000715)87:2<221::AID-IJC11>3.0.CO;2-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lenselink CH, Melchers WJ, Quint WG, Hoebers AM, Hendriks JC, Massuger LF, Bekkers RL: Sexual behaviour and HPV infections in 18 to 29 year old women in the pre-vaccine era in the Netherlands. PLoS One. 2008, 3 (11): e3743-10.1371/journal.pone.0003743.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kramer M, Mollema L, Smits G, Boot H, de Melker H, der Klis FV: Age-specific HPV seroprevalence among young females in The Netherlands. Sex Transm Infect. 2010, 86 (7): 494-499. 10.1136/sti.2009.041210.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jit M, Chapman R, Hughes O, Choi YH: Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model. BMJ. 2012, 343: d5775-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Oostenbrink JB, Bouwmans CAM, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH: Guideline for costing research, methods and standardized prices for economic evaluations in health care. 2004, Diemen: Health Care Insurance BoardGoogle Scholar
- Woodhall SC, Jit M, Cai C, Ramsey T, Zia S, Crouch S, Birks Y, Newton R, Edmunds WJ, Lacey CJ: Cost of treatment and QALYs lost due to genital warts: data for the economic evaluation of HPV vaccines in the United Kingdom. Sex Transm Dis. 2009, 36 (8): 515-521. 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181a74c2c.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Woodhall S, Ramsey T, Cai C, Crouch S, Jit M, Birks Y, Edmunds WJ, Newton R, Lacey CJ: Estimation of the impact of genital warts on health-related quality of life. Sex Transm Infect. 2008, 84 (3): 161-166. 10.1136/sti.2007.029512.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Munoz N, Kjaer SK, Sigurdsson K, Iversen OE, Hernandez-Avila M, Wheeler CM, Perez G, Brown DR, Koutsky LA, Tay EH, et al: Impact of human papillomavirus (HPV)-6/11/16/18 vaccine on all HPV-associated genital diseases in young women. J Natl Canc Inst. 2010, 102 (5): 325-339. 10.1093/jnci/djp534.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Medeiros LR, Rosa DD, da Rosa MI, Bozzetti MC, Zanini RR: Efficacy of human papillomavirus vaccines: a systematic quantitative review. Int J Gynecol Canc. 2009, 19 (7): 1166-1176. 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181a3d100.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Malagon T, Drolet M, Boily MC, Franco EL, Jit M, Brisson J, Brisson M: Cross-protective efficacy of two human papillomavirus vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012, 12 (10): 781-789. 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70187-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- David MP, Van Herck K, Hardt K, Tibaldi F, Dubin G, Descamps D, Van Damme P: Long-term persistence of anti-HPV-16 and -18 antibodies induced by vaccination with the AS04-adjuvanted cervical cancer vaccine: modeling of sustained antibody responses. Gynecol Oncol. 2009, 115 (3 Suppl): S1-S6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. The Internaltional Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research: http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/index.asp [accessed April 2011]
- Einstein MH, Baron M, Levin MJ, Chatterjee A, Edwards RP, Zepp F, Carletti I, Dessy FJ, Trofa AF, Schuind A, et al: Comparison of the immunogenicity and safety of Cervarix and Gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer vaccines in healthy women aged 18-45 years. Hum Vaccin. 2009, 5 (10): 705-719. 10.4161/hv.5.10.9518.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Beutels P, Scuffham PA, MacIntyre CR: Funding of drugs: do vaccines warrant a different approach?. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008, 8 (11): 727-733. 10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70258-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jit M, Brisson M: Modelling the epidemiology of infectious diseases for decision analysis: a primer. PharmacoEconomics. 2011, 29 (5): 371-386. 10.2165/11539960-000000000-00000.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Postma MJ: Dynamic modeling for pandemic influenza. Expet Rev Vaccine. 2012, 11 (5): 543-546. 10.1586/erv.12.30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Morris SR: HPV vaccine strategies: the cost of HPV and the choice of vaccine. Sex Transm Infect. 2009, 85 (5): 315-316. 10.1136/sti.2008.034793.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jit M, Chapman R, Hughes O, Choi YH: Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model. BMJ. 2011, 343: d5775-10.1136/bmj.d5775.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Jit M, Choi YH, Edmunds WJ: Economic evaluation of human papillomavirus vaccination in the United Kingdom. BMJ. 2008, 337: a769-10.1136/bmj.a769.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Demarteau N, Tang CH, Chen HC, Chen CJ, Van Kriekinge G: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the bivalent compared with the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines in Taiwan. Value Health. 2012, 15 (5): 622-631. 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/13/75/prepub
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.