Evaluación costo-efectividad de dos alternativas de vacunación para el virus del papiloma humano en la prevención del cáncer cervical uterino
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
KeywordsVacunas contra papillomavirus
Neoplasias del cuello uterino
Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
MetadataShow full item record
Other TitlesEvaluation of the cost-effectiveness of two alternative human papillomavirus vaccines as prophylaxis against uterine cervical cancer
Citation[Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of two alternative human papillomavirus vaccines as prophylaxis against uterine cervical cancer]., 33 (3):411-418 Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica
PublisherInstituto Nacional de Salud (INS)
JournalRevista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica
AbstractObjectives. To determine the cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cervical lesion screening versus screening alone for the prevention of uterine cervical cancer (UCC). Materials and methods. This cost-effectiveness evaluation from the perspective of the Ministry of Health employed a Markov model with a 70-year time horizon and three alternatives for UCC prevention (screening alone, screening + bivalent vaccine, and screening + quadrivalent vaccine) in a hypothetical cohort of 10-year-old girls. Results. Our model, which was particularly sensitive to variations in coverage and in the prevalence of persistent infection by oncologic genotypes not included in the vaccine, revealed that HPV vaccination and screening is more cost-effective than screening alone, assuming a payment availability from S/ 2 000 (US dollars (USD) 1 290.32) per subject. In the deterministic analysis, the bivalent vaccine was marginally more cost-effective than the quadrivalent vaccine (S/ 48 [USD 30.97] vs. S/ 166 [USD 107.10] per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). However, in the probabilistic analysis, both interventions generated clouds of overlapping points and were thus cost-effective and interchangeable, although the quadrivalent vaccine tended to be more cost-effective. Conclusions. Assuming a payment availability from S/ 2000 [USD 1,290.32], screening and vaccination were more cost-effective than screening alone. The difference in cost-effectiveness between the two vaccines lacked probabilistic robustness, and therefore the vaccines can be considered interchangeable from a cost-effectiveness perspective.
The following license files are associated with this item:
- Cost-effectiveness of different human papillomavirus vaccines in Singapore.
- Authors: Lee VJ, Tay SK, Teoh YL, Tok MY
- Issue date: 2011 Mar 31
- Health economic evaluation of Human Papillomavirus vaccines in women from Venezuela by a lifetime Markov cohort model.
- Authors: Bardach AE, Garay OU, Calderón M, Pichón-Riviére A, Augustovski F, Martí SG, Cortiñas P, Gonzalez M, Naranjo LT, Gomez JA, Caporale JE
- Issue date: 2017 Feb 2
- Health economic analysis of human papillomavirus vaccines in women of Chile: perspective of the health care payer using a Markov model.
- Authors: Gomez JA, Lepetic A, Demarteau N
- Issue date: 2014 Nov 26
- Cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination in the context of high cervical cancer incidence and low screening coverage.
- Authors: Võrno T, Lutsar K, Uusküla A, Padrik L, Raud T, Reile R, Nahkur O, Kiivet RA
- Issue date: 2017 Nov 1
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of the bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines from a societal perspective in Colombia.
- Authors: Aponte-González J, Fajardo-Bernal L, Diaz J, Eslava-Schmalbach J, Gamboa O, Hay JW
- Issue date: 2013