Email this article ECONOMIC EFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINATIONAGAINST PAPILLOMA VIRUS IN THERUSSIAN FEDERATION
- Authors: Kostinov MP1, Zverev VV1, Kostinov MP2, Zverev VV2
-
Affiliations:
- Mechnikov Research Institute of Vaccines andSera, Moscow, Russia
- Issue: Vol 89, No 2 (2012)
- Pages: 43-50
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://microbiol.crie.ru/jour/article/view/13677
- ID: 13677
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
Aim. Perform pharmacoeconomic analysis of
effectiveness of implementation of program of
pre-exposition vaccination against HPVassociated
diseases in the Russian Federation.
Materials and methods. Pharmacoeconomic
analysis consisted of comparison of vaccination
costs and assumed benefits of prevented losses
from HPV-associated diseases from the society
perspective as a whole under the condition of
cohort vaccination of girls aged 12 years. A
population model executed in MS Excel that
allows to perform calculations and obtain results
when initial data are changed was adapted for
the analysis. The number of prevented HPVassociated
diseases was determined by multiplying
the number of disease cases observed per
year and the effectiveness of the vaccine against
each type of the disease. The resulting number
of prevented cases was then multiplied by the
cost of every HPV-associated condition, and as
a result the benefit of vaccine use against human
papilloma virus was determined. Results. The
cervical cancer (CC) morbidity parameter in
the Russian Federation is 13 807. By method of
simple proportional extrapolation based on the
European data, a calculation of morbidity in the
Russian Federation was performed: atypical
squamous cells of undetermined significance
(ASCUS) - 1 454 015; low grade cervical intraepithelial
neoplasia (CIN 1) - 660 207; high
grade CIN2, CIN3 - 142 153. Vaccine effectiveness
against CIN1, CIN2, CIN3 and CC would
presumably be 45.9%, 65.1%, 85.7%, respectively.
Vaccine effectiveness against these diseases
caused by HPV type 16 and 18 would be
98%, and HPV type 31, 33, 45, 52, 58, 35, 39,
51, 56, 59 cumulatively - 47.7%. The cost of
HPV-associated diseases (per case) was 8200
RUR (Russian ruble) for ASCUS, 25 200 RUR
for CIN1, 60 020 RUR for CIN2 and CIN3,
average weighted cost of CC - 188 772 RUR.
The number of prevented cases of ASCUS,
CIN1, CIN2, CIN3 and CC when vaccine was
used was 322 791, 303 050, 92 496 and 11 827,
respectively. The cost of vaccination of 1 cohort
was 3.4 milliards RUR, and the prevented
losses in Russian Federation were 19.4 milliards
RUR. Conclusion. The results of pharmacoeconomic
analysis allow to assume that the cost of
implementation of a program of vaccination
against CC and other HPV-associated diseases
in the Russian Federation are 5.4 times less
compared with yearly preventable losses, that
has a significant social and economical effect.
effectiveness of implementation of program of
pre-exposition vaccination against HPVassociated
diseases in the Russian Federation.
Materials and methods. Pharmacoeconomic
analysis consisted of comparison of vaccination
costs and assumed benefits of prevented losses
from HPV-associated diseases from the society
perspective as a whole under the condition of
cohort vaccination of girls aged 12 years. A
population model executed in MS Excel that
allows to perform calculations and obtain results
when initial data are changed was adapted for
the analysis. The number of prevented HPVassociated
diseases was determined by multiplying
the number of disease cases observed per
year and the effectiveness of the vaccine against
each type of the disease. The resulting number
of prevented cases was then multiplied by the
cost of every HPV-associated condition, and as
a result the benefit of vaccine use against human
papilloma virus was determined. Results. The
cervical cancer (CC) morbidity parameter in
the Russian Federation is 13 807. By method of
simple proportional extrapolation based on the
European data, a calculation of morbidity in the
Russian Federation was performed: atypical
squamous cells of undetermined significance
(ASCUS) - 1 454 015; low grade cervical intraepithelial
neoplasia (CIN 1) - 660 207; high
grade CIN2, CIN3 - 142 153. Vaccine effectiveness
against CIN1, CIN2, CIN3 and CC would
presumably be 45.9%, 65.1%, 85.7%, respectively.
Vaccine effectiveness against these diseases
caused by HPV type 16 and 18 would be
98%, and HPV type 31, 33, 45, 52, 58, 35, 39,
51, 56, 59 cumulatively - 47.7%. The cost of
HPV-associated diseases (per case) was 8200
RUR (Russian ruble) for ASCUS, 25 200 RUR
for CIN1, 60 020 RUR for CIN2 and CIN3,
average weighted cost of CC - 188 772 RUR.
The number of prevented cases of ASCUS,
CIN1, CIN2, CIN3 and CC when vaccine was
used was 322 791, 303 050, 92 496 and 11 827,
respectively. The cost of vaccination of 1 cohort
was 3.4 milliards RUR, and the prevented
losses in Russian Federation were 19.4 milliards
RUR. Conclusion. The results of pharmacoeconomic
analysis allow to assume that the cost of
implementation of a program of vaccination
against CC and other HPV-associated diseases
in the Russian Federation are 5.4 times less
compared with yearly preventable losses, that
has a significant social and economical effect.
About the authors
M P Kostinov
V V Zverev
M P Kostinov
Mechnikov Research Institute of Vaccines andSera, Moscow, RussiaMechnikov Research Institute of Vaccines andSera, Moscow, Russia
V V Zverev
Mechnikov Research Institute of Vaccines andSera, Moscow, RussiaMechnikov Research Institute of Vaccines andSera, Moscow, Russia
References
- Профилактика рака шейки матки: Руководство для врачей. М., МЕДпресс-информ, 2008.
- Статистика злокачественных новообразований в России и странах СНГ в 2005 г. Вестник РОНЦ им. Блохина РАМН. 2007, 18, 2 (1): 86.
- Alexandrova Y.N., Lyshchov A.A., Safronnikova N.R. et al. Features of HPV infection among the healthy attendants of gynecological practice in St. Petersburg, Russia. Cancer Lett. 1999, 145 (1-2): 43-48.
- Bergeron C., Cartier I., Guldner L. et al. Lésions précancéreuses et cancers du col de l'utérus diagnostiqués par lefrottis cervical, Ile-de-France, enquête Crisap, 2002, Bull. Epidém. Hebd. 2005, 2: 5-8.
- Castellsague X., de Sanjose S., Aguado T. et al. HPV and cervical cancer in the World. Vaccine. 2007, 25 (3): 1-23.
- Castellsaguй X. Natural history and epidemiology of HPV infection and cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008, 110 (3; 2): 4-7.
- Clifford G., Franceschi S., Diaz M. et al. Chapter 3: HPV type-distribution with and without cervical neoplastic deseases. Vac cine. 2006, 24 (3): 26-34.
- Clifford G.M., Rashida K.R., Franceschi S. et al. Human papillomavirus genotype distribution in low-grade cervical lesions: comparison by geographic region and with cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2005, 14 (5): 1157-1164.
- Goldie S., Kohli M., Grima D. et. al. Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectinies of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2004, 96: 604-615.
- Harper D.M., Franco E.L., Wheeler C. et al. Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus- like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus tupes 16 and 18 in young women: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004, 364: 1757-1765.
- Paavonen J., Naud P., Salmeron J. еt al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by oncogenic HPV types (PATRICIYA): final analysis of a double-blind, randomized study in young women. Lancet. 2009, 374: 301- 314.
- Smith J.S., Lindsay L., Hoots B. et al. Human papillomavirus type distribution in invasive cervical cancer and high-grade cervical lesions: A meta-analysis update. Int. J. Cancer. 2007, 121 (3): 621-632.
Supplementary files
