or search on
|Title:||Modeling Preventative Strategies against HPV-Related Disease in Developed Countries|
|Authors:||Canfell K; Chesson H; Kulasingam SL; Berkhof J; Mireia Diaz; Kim J|
|Categories:||Cancer Control, Survivorship, and Outcomes Research - Health Services, Economic and Health Policy Analyses|
Cancer Type - Cervical Cancer
|Page number start:||157|
|Page number end:||167|
|Abstract:||Abstract Over the last five years, prophylactic vaccination against Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in pre-adolescent females has been introduced in most developed countries, supported by modeled evaluations which have almost universally found vaccination of pre-adolescent females to be cost-effective. Studies to date suggest that vaccination of pre-adolescent males may also be cost-effective at a cost per vaccinated individual ~US$400–500 if vaccination coverage in females cannot be increased above ~50%; but if it is possible, increasing coverage in females appears to be a better return on investment. Comparative evaluation of the quadrivalent (HPV16,18,6,11) and bivalent (HPV16,18) vaccines centers around the potential tradeoff between protection against anogenital warts and vaccine-specific levels of cross-protection against infections not targeted by the vaccines. Future evaluations will also need to consider the cost-effectiveness of a next generation nonavalent vaccine designed to protect against ~90% of cervical cancers. The timing of the effect of vaccination on cervical screening programs will be country-specific and will depend on vaccination catch-up age range and coverage and the age at which screening starts. Initial evaluations suggest that if screening remains unchanged it will be less cost-effective in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated women but, in the context of current vaccines, will remain an important prevention method. Comprehensive evaluation of new approaches to screening will need to consider the population-level effects of vaccination over time. New screening strategies of particular interest include delaying the start age of screening, increasing the screening interval and switching to primary HPV screening. Future evaluations of screening will also need to focus on the effects of disparities in screening and vaccination uptake, the potential effects of vaccination on screening participation, and the effects of imperfect compliance with screening recommendations.|
|Division:||Cancer Research Division|
|Appears in Collections:||Research Articles|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.