Global impact and cost-effectiveness of one-dose versus two-dose human papillomavirus vaccination schedules: a comparative modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: To eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, the World Health Organization had recommended routine vaccination of adolescent girls with two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine before sexual initiation. However, many countries have yet to implement HPV vaccination because of financial or logistical barriers to delivering two doses outside the infant immunisation programme. METHODS: Using three independent HPV transmission models, we estimated the long-term health benefits and cost-effectiveness of one-dose versus two-dose HPV vaccination, in 188 countries, under scenarios in which one dose of the vaccine gives either a shorter duration of full protection (20 or 30 years) or lifelong protection but lower vaccine efficacy (e.g. 80%) compared to two doses. We simulated routine vaccination with the 9-valent HPV vaccine in 10-year-old girls at 80% coverage for the years 2021-2120, with a 1-year catch-up campaign up to age 14 at 80% coverage in the first year of the programme. RESULTS: Over the years 2021-2120, one-dose vaccination at 80% coverage was projected to avert 115.2 million (range of medians: 85.1-130.4) and 146.8 million (114.1-161.6) cervical cancers assuming one dose of the vaccine confers 20 and 30 years of protection, respectively. Should one dose of the vaccine provide lifelong protection at 80% vaccine efficacy, 147.8 million (140.6-169.7) cervical cancer cases could be prevented. If protection wanes after 20 years, 65 to 889 additional girls would need to be vaccinated with the second dose to prevent one cervical cancer, depending on the epidemiological profiles of the country. Across all income groups, the threshold cost for the second dose was low: from 1.59 (0.14-3.82) USD in low-income countries to 44.83 (3.75-85.64) USD in high-income countries, assuming one dose confers 30-year protection. CONCLUSIONS: Results were consistent across the three independent models and suggest that one-dose vaccination has similar health benefits to a two-dose programme while simplifying vaccine delivery, reducing costs, and alleviating vaccine supply constraints. The second dose may become cost-effective if there is a shorter duration of protection from one dose, cheaper vaccine and vaccination delivery strategies, and high burden of cervical cancer.

Single-Dose Messenger RNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Healthcare Workers Extending 16 Weeks Postvaccination: A Test-Negative Design From Québec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, first and second doses of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were uniquely spaced 16 weeks apart. We estimated 1- and 2-dose mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Québec, Canada, including protection against varying outcome severity, variants of concern (VOCs), and the stability of single-dose protection up to 16 weeks postvaccination. METHODS: A test-negative design compared vaccination among SARS-CoV-2 test-positive and weekly matched (10:1), randomly sampled, test-negative HCWs using linked surveillance and immunization databases. Vaccine status was defined by 1 dose ≥14 days or 2 doses ≥7 days before illness onset or specimen collection. Adjusted VE was estimated by conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Primary analysis included 5316 cases and 53 160 controls. Single-dose VE was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68%-73%) against SARS-CoV-2 infection; 73% (95% CI, 71%-75%) against illness; and 97% (95% CI, 92%-99%) against hospitalization. Two-dose VE was 86% (95% CI, 81%-90%) and 93% (95% CI, 89%-95%), respectively, with no hospitalizations. VE was higher for non-VOCs than VOCs (73% Alpha) among single-dose recipients but not 2-dose recipients. Across 16 weeks, no decline in single-dose VE was observed, with appropriate stratification based upon prioritized vaccination determined by higher vs lower likelihood of direct patient contact. CONCLUSIONS: One mRNA vaccine dose provided substantial and sustained protection to HCWs extending at least 4 months postvaccination. In circumstances of vaccine shortage, delaying the second dose may be a pertinent public health strategy.

Two-Dose Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccine Effectiveness With Mixed Schedules and Extended Dosing Intervals: Test-Negative Design Studies From British Columbia and Quebec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) immunization strategy deferred second doses and allowed mixed schedules. We compared 2-dose vaccine effectiveness (VE) by vaccine type (mRNA and/or ChAdOx1), interval between doses, and time since second dose in 2 of Canada's larger provinces. METHODS: Two-dose VE against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or hospitalization among adults ≥18 years, including due to Alpha, Gamma, and Delta variants of concern (VOCs), was assessed ≥14 days postvaccination by test-negative design studies separately conducted in British Columbia and Quebec, Canada, between 30 May and 27 November (epi-weeks 22-47) 2021. RESULTS: In both provinces, all homologous or heterologous mRNA and/or ChAdOx1 2-dose schedules were associated with ≥90% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization risk for ≥7 months. With slight decline from a peak of >90%, VE against infection was ≥80% for ≥6 months following homologous mRNA vaccination, lower by ∼10% when both doses were ChAdOx1 but comparably high following heterologous ChAdOx1 + mRNA receipt. Findings were similar by age group, sex, and VOC. VE was significantly higher with longer 7-8-week versus manufacturer-specified 3-4-week intervals between mRNA doses. CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of any mRNA and/or ChAdOx1 combination gave substantial and sustained protection against SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization, spanning Delta-dominant circulation. ChAdOx1 VE against infection was improved by heterologous mRNA series completion. A 7-8-week interval between first and second doses improved mRNA VE and may be the optimal schedule outside periods of intense epidemic surge. Findings support interchangeability and extended intervals between SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses, with potential global implications for low-coverage areas and, going forward, for children.

Time trends in social contacts of individuals according to comorbidity and vaccination status, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: As we are confronted with more transmissible/severe variants with immune escape and the waning of vaccine efficacy, it is particularly relevant to understand how the social contacts of individuals at greater risk of COVID-19 complications evolved over time. We described time trends in social contacts of individuals according to comorbidity and vaccination status before and during the first three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec, Canada. METHODS: We used data from CONNECT, a repeated cross-sectional population-based survey of social contacts conducted before (2018/2019) and during the pandemic (April 2020 to July 2021). We recruited non-institutionalized adults from Quebec, Canada, by random digit dialling. We used a self-administered web-based questionnaire to measure the number of social contacts of participants (two-way conversation at a distance ≤2 m or a physical contact, irrespective of masking). We compared the mean number of contacts/day according to the comorbidity status of participants (pre-existing medical conditions with symptoms/medication in the past 12 months) and 1-dose vaccination status during the third wave. All analyses were performed using weighted generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and robust variance. RESULTS: A total of 1441 and 5185 participants with and without comorbidities, respectively, were included in the analyses. Contacts significantly decreased from a mean of 6.1 (95%CI 4.9-7.3) before the pandemic to 3.2 (95%CI 2.5-3.9) during the first wave among individuals with comorbidities and from 8.1 (95%CI 7.3-9.0) to 2.7 (95%CI 2.2-3.2) among individuals without comorbidities. Individuals with comorbidities maintained fewer contacts than those without comorbidities in the second wave, with a significant difference before the Christmas 2020/2021 holidays (2.9 (95%CI 2.5-3.2) vs 3.9 (95%CI 3.5-4.3); P<0.001). During the third wave, contacts were similar for individuals with (4.1, 95%CI 3.4-4.7) and without comorbidities (4.5, 95%CI 4.1-4.9; P=0.27). This could be partly explained by individuals with comorbidities vaccinated with their first dose who increased their contacts to the level of those without comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: It will be important to closely monitor COVID-19-related outcomes and social contacts by comorbidity and vaccination status to inform targeted or population-based interventions (e.g., booster doses of the vaccine).

Time trends in social contacts before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: the CONNECT study.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries, including Canada, have adopted unprecedented physical distancing measures such as closure of schools and non-essential businesses, and restrictions on gatherings and household visits. We described time trends in social contacts for the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods in Quebec, Canada. METHODS: CONNECT is a population-based study of social contacts conducted shortly before (2018/2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020 - February 2021), using the same methodology for both periods. We recruited participants by random digit dialing and collected data by self-administered web-based questionnaires. Questionnaires documented socio-demographic characteristics and social contacts for two assigned days. A contact was defined as a two-way conversation at a distance ≤ 2 m or as a physical contact, irrespective of masking. We used weighted generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and robust variance (taking possible overdispersion into account) to compare the mean number of social contacts over time and by socio-demographic characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 1291 and 5516 Quebecers completed the study before and during the pandemic, respectively. Contacts significantly decreased from a mean of 8 contacts/day prior to the pandemic to 3 contacts/day during the spring 2020 lockdown. Contacts remained lower than the pre-COVID period thereafter (lowest = 3 contacts/day during the Christmas 2020/2021 holidays, highest = 5 in September 2020). Contacts at work, during leisure activities/in other locations, and at home with visitors showed the greatest decreases since the beginning of the pandemic. All sociodemographic subgroups showed significant decreases of contacts since the beginning of the pandemic. The mixing matrices illustrated the impact of public health measures (e.g. school closure, gathering restrictions) with fewer contacts between children/teenagers and fewer contacts outside of the three main diagonals of contacts between same-age partners/siblings and between children and their parents. CONCLUSION: Physical distancing measures in Quebec significantly decreased social contacts, which most likely mitigated the spread of COVID-19.

Impact of HPV vaccination and cervical screening on cervical cancer elimination: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Director-General has issued a call for action to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To help inform global efforts, we modelled potential human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cervical screening scenarios in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) to examine the feasibility and timing of elimination at different thresholds, and to estimate the number of cervical cancer cases averted on the path to elimination. METHODS: The WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC), which consists of three independent transmission-dynamic models identified by WHO according to predefined criteria, projected reductions in cervical cancer incidence over time in 78 LMICs for three standardised base-case scenarios: girls-only vaccination; girls-only vaccination and once-lifetime screening; and girls-only vaccination and twice-lifetime screening. Girls were vaccinated at age 9 years (with a catch-up to age 14 years), assuming 90% coverage and 100% lifetime protection against HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Cervical screening involved HPV testing once or twice per lifetime at ages 35 years and 45 years, with uptake increasing from 45% (2023) to 90% (2045 onwards). The elimination thresholds examined were an average age-standardised cervical cancer incidence of four or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years and ten or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, and an 85% or greater reduction in incidence. Sensitivity analyses were done, varying vaccination and screening strategies and assumptions. We summarised results using the median (range) of model predictions. FINDINGS: Girls-only HPV vaccination was predicted to reduce the median age-standardised cervical cancer incidence in LMICs from 19·8 (range 19·4-19·8) to 2·1 (2·0-2·6) cases per 100 000 women-years over the next century (89·4% [86·2-90·1] reduction), and to avert 61·0 million (60·5-63·0) cases during this period. Adding twice-lifetime screening reduced the incidence to 0·7 (0·6-1·6) cases per 100 000 women-years (96·7% [91·3-96·7] reduction) and averted an extra 12·1 million (9·5-13·7) cases. Girls-only vaccination was predicted to result in elimination in 60% (58-65) of LMICs based on the threshold of four or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, in 99% (89-100) of LMICs based on the threshold of ten or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, and in 87% (37-99) of LMICs based on the 85% or greater reduction threshold. When adding twice-lifetime screening, 100% (71-100) of LMICs reached elimination for all three thresholds. In regions in which all countries can achieve cervical cancer elimination with girls-only vaccination, elimination could occur between 2059 and 2102, depending on the threshold and region. Introducing twice-lifetime screening accelerated elimination by 11-31 years. Long-term vaccine protection was required for elimination. INTERPRETATION: Predictions were consistent across our three models and suggest that high HPV vaccination coverage of girls can lead to cervical cancer elimination in most LMICs by the end of the century. Screening with high uptake will expedite reductions and will be necessary to eliminate cervical cancer in countries with the highest burden. FUNDING: WHO, UNDP, UN Population Fund, UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Compute Canada, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia Centre for Research Excellence in Cervical Cancer Control.

Mortality impact of achieving WHO cervical cancer elimination targets: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: WHO is developing a global strategy towards eliminating cervical cancer as a public health problem, which proposes an elimination threshold of four cases per 100 000 women and includes 2030 triple-intervention coverage targets for scale-up of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to 90%, twice-lifetime cervical screening to 70%, and treatment of pre-invasive lesions and invasive cancer to 90%. We assessed the impact of achieving the 90-70-90 triple-intervention targets on cervical cancer mortality and deaths averted over the next century. We also assessed the potential for the elimination initiative to support target 3.4 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-a one-third reduction in premature mortality from non-communicable diseases by 2030. METHODS: The WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC) involves three independent, dynamic models of HPV infection, cervical carcinogenesis, screening, and precancer and invasive cancer treatment. Reductions in age-standardised rates of cervical cancer mortality in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) were estimated for three core scenarios: girls-only vaccination at age 9 years with catch-up for girls aged 10-14 years; girls-only vaccination plus once-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up; and girls-only vaccination plus twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up. Vaccination was assumed to provide 100% lifetime protection against infections with HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, and to scale up to 90% coverage in 2020. Cervical screening involved HPV testing at age 35 years, or at ages 35 years and 45 years, with scale-up to 45% coverage by 2023, 70% by 2030, and 90% by 2045, and we assumed that 50% of women with invasive cervical cancer would receive appropriate surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy by 2023, which would increase to 90% by 2030. We summarised results using the median (range) of model predictions. FINDINGS: In 2020, the estimated cervical cancer mortality rate across all 78 LMICs was 13·2 (range 12·9-14·1) per 100 000 women. Compared to the status quo, by 2030, vaccination alone would have minimal impact on cervical cancer mortality, leading to a 0·1% (0·1-0·5) reduction, but additionally scaling up twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 34·2% (23·3-37·8), averting 300 000 (300 000-400 000) deaths by 2030 (with similar results for once-lifetime screening). By 2070, scaling up vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 61·7% (61·4-66·1), averting 4·8 million (4·1-4·8) deaths. By 2070, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 88·9% (84·0-89·3), averting 13·3 million (13·1-13·6) deaths (with once-lifetime screening), or by 92·3% (88·4-93·0), averting 14·6 million (14·1-14·6) deaths (with twice-lifetime screening). By 2120, vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 89·5% (86·6-89·9), averting 45·8 million (44·7-46·4) deaths. By 2120, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 97·9% (95·0-98·0), averting 60·8 million (60·2-61·2) deaths (with once-lifetime screening), or by 98·6% (96·5-98·6), averting 62·6 million (62·1-62·8) deaths (with twice-lifetime screening). With the WHO triple-intervention strategy, over the next 10 years, about half (48% [45-55]) of deaths averted would be in sub-Saharan Africa and almost a third (32% [29-34]) would be in South Asia; over the next 100 years, almost 90% of deaths averted would be in these regions. For premature deaths (age 30-69 years), the WHO triple-intervention strategy would result in rate reductions of 33·9% (24·4-37·9) by 2030, 96·2% (94·3-96·8) by 2070, and 98·6% (96·9-98·8) by 2120. INTERPRETATION: These findings emphasise the importance of acting immediately on three fronts to scale up vaccination, screening, and treatment for pre-invasive and invasive cervical cancer. In the next 10 years, a one-third reduction in the rate of premature mortality from cervical cancer in LMICs is possible, contributing to the realisation of the 2030 UN SDGs. Over the next century, successful implementation of the WHO elimination strategy would reduce cervical cancer mortality by almost 99% and save more than 62 million women's lives. FUNDING: WHO, UNDP, UN Population Fund, UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Germany Federal Ministry of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Centre for Research Excellence in Cervical Cancer Control, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Compute Canada, and Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Through Age 45 Years in the United States.

Background: In the United States, the routine age for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is 11 to 12 years, with catch-up vaccination through age 26 years for women and 21 years for men. U.S. vaccination policy on use of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in adult women and men is being reviewed. Objective: To evaluate the added population-level effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of extending the current U.S. HPV vaccination program to women aged 27 to 45 years and men aged 22 to 45 years. Design: The analysis used HPV-ADVISE (Agent-based Dynamic model for VaccInation and Screening Evaluation), an individual-based transmission dynamic model of HPV infection and associated diseases, calibrated to age-specific U.S. data. Data Sources: Published data. Target Population: Women aged 27 to 45 years and men aged 22 to 45 years in the United States. Time Horizon: 100 years. Perspective: Health care sector. Intervention: 9-valent HPV vaccination. Outcome Measures: HPV-associated outcomes prevented and cost-effectiveness ratios. Results of Base-Case Analysis: The model predicts that the current U.S. HPV vaccination program will reduce the number of diagnoses of anogenital warts and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or 3 and cases of cervical cancer and noncervical HPV-associated cancer by 82%, 80%, 59%, and 39%, respectively, over 100 years and is cost saving (vs. no vaccination). In contrast, extending vaccination to women and men aged 45 years is predicted to reduce these outcomes by an additional 0.4, 0.4, 0.2, and 0.2 percentage points, respectively. Vaccinating women and men up to age 30, 40, and 45 years is predicted to cost $830 000, $1 843 000, and $1 471 000, respectively, per quality-adjusted life-year gained (vs. current vaccination). Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Results were most sensitive to assumptions about natural immunity and progression rates after infection, historical vaccination coverage, and vaccine efficacy. Limitation: Uncertainty about the proportion of HPV-associated disease due to infections after age 26 years and about the level of herd effects from the current HPV vaccination program. Conclusion: The current HPV vaccination program is predicted to be cost saving. Extending vaccination to older ages is predicted to produce small additional health benefits and result in substantially higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than the current recommendation. Primary Funding Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Wage losses among spouses of women with nonmetastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the wage losses incurred by spouses of women with nonmetastatic breast cancer in the 6 months after the diagnosis. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of spouses of women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer who were recruited in 8 hospitals in the province of Quebec (Canada) was performed. Information for estimating wage losses was collected by telephone interviews conducted 1 and 6 months after the diagnosis. Log-binomial regressions were used to identify personal, medical, and employment characteristics associated with experiencing wage losses, and generalized linear models were used to identify characteristics associated with the proportion of usual wages lost. RESULTS: Overall, 829 women (86% participation) and 406 spouses (75% participation) consented to participate. Among the 279 employed spouses, 78.5% experienced work absences because of breast cancer. Spouses were compensated for 66.3% of their salary on average during their absence. The median wage loss was $0 (mean, $1820) (2003 Canadian dollars). Spouses were more likely to experience losses if they were self-employed or lived 50 km or farther from the hospital. Among spouses who experienced wage losses, those who were self-employed or whose partners had invasive breast cancer lost a higher proportion of wages. CONCLUSIONS: Although spouses took some time off work, for many, the resulting wage losses were modest because of compensation received. Still, the types of compensation used may hide other forms of burden for families facing breast cancer.

Population-level impact and herd effects following the introduction of human papillomavirus vaccination programmes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: More than 10 years have elapsed since human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination was implemented. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the population-level impact of vaccinating girls and women against human papillomavirus on HPV infections, anogenital wart diagnoses, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) to summarise the most recent evidence about the effectiveness of HPV vaccines in real-world settings and to quantify the impact of multiple age-cohort vaccination. METHODS: In this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, we used the same search strategy as in our previous paper. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies published between Feb 1, 2014, and Oct 11, 2018. Studies were eligible if they compared the frequency (prevalence or incidence) of at least one HPV-related endpoint (genital HPV infections, anogenital wart diagnoses, or histologically confirmed CIN2+) between pre-vaccination and post-vaccination periods among the general population and if they used the same population sources and recruitment methods before and after vaccination. Our primary assessment was the relative risk (RR) comparing the frequency (prevalence or incidence) of HPV-related endpoints between the pre-vaccination and post-vaccination periods. We stratified all analyses by sex, age, and years since introduction of HPV vaccination. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled relative risks. FINDINGS: We identified 1702 potentially eligible articles for this systematic review and meta-analysis, and included 65 articles in 14 high-income countries: 23 for HPV infection, 29 for anogenital warts, and 13 for CIN2+. After 5-8 years of vaccination, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 decreased significantly by 83% (RR 0·17, 95% CI 0·11-0·25) among girls aged 13-19 years, and decreased significantly by 66% (RR 0·34, 95% CI 0·23-0·49) among women aged 20-24 years. The prevalence of HPV 31, 33, and 45 decreased significantly by 54% (RR 0·46, 95% CI 0·33-0·66) among girls aged 13-19 years. Anogenital wart diagnoses decreased significantly by 67% (RR 0·33, 95% CI 0·24-0·46) among girls aged 15-19 years, decreased significantly by 54% (RR 0·46, 95% CI 0.36-0.60) among women aged 20-24 years, and decreased significantly by 31% (RR 0·69, 95% CI 0·53-0·89) among women aged 25-29 years. Among boys aged 15-19 years anogenital wart diagnoses decreased significantly by 48% (RR 0·52, 95% CI 0·37-0·75) and among men aged 20-24 years they decreased significantly by 32% (RR 0·68, 95% CI 0·47-0·98). After 5-9 years of vaccination, CIN2+ decreased significantly by 51% (RR 0·49, 95% CI 0·42-0·58) among screened girls aged 15-19 years and decreased significantly by 31% (RR 0·69, 95% CI 0·57-0·84) among women aged 20-24 years. INTERPRETATION: This updated systematic review and meta-analysis includes data from 60 million individuals and up to 8 years of post-vaccination follow-up. Our results show compelling evidence of the substantial impact of HPV vaccination programmes on HPV infections and CIN2+ among girls and women, and on anogenital warts diagnoses among girls, women, boys, and men. Additionally, programmes with multi-cohort vaccination and high vaccination coverage had a greater direct impact and herd effects. FUNDING: WHO, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaccination against herpes zoster in Canada: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Two vaccines against herpes zoster are currently authorized for use in Canada: the recombinant subunit zoster vaccine and live attenuated zoster vaccine. We compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these 2 vaccines. METHODS: We used a decision analytic static cohort model parametrized with Canadian epidemiologic and economic data. We performed the economic analysis from the health care system perspective, using a lifetime horizon and a 3% discount rate for costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, relative to no vaccination. We ran 30 000 simulations varying all model parameters, including vaccine costs, efficacy and waning. RESULTS: The number needed to vaccinate (NNV) was higher for the live attenuated zoster vaccine than for the recombinant subunit zoster vaccine for all herpes zoster-related events at all ages. For example, in persons exactly 65 years old, for herpes zoster, median NNV was 21 (90% uncertainty interval [UI] 13-31) versus 8 (90% UI 6-18), and for postherpetic neuralgia, NNV was 64 (90% UI 33-93) versus 31 (90% UI 23-73). For the recombinant vaccine, the median cost-effectiveness ratios varied between cost-saving and $25 881 per QALY gained for adults aged 50 years or older. For the live vaccine, the cost-effectiveness ratios varied between cost-saving and $130 587 per QALY gained and were less than $45 000 per QALY gained only for those 65 to 75 years old. Given its higher efficacy, we estimated that the cost for the complete series of the recombinant vaccine could be $150 to $200 more than the cost of the live vaccine and still be considered cost-effective. INTERPRETATION: Our model predicted that the recombinant subunit zoster vaccine is likely cost-effective in Canada for adults 60 years or older, and is likely more cost-effective than live attenuated zoster vaccine. These results have informed updated national and provincial recommendations on herpes zoster vaccination.

Model Comparisons of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Vaccination: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVES: To describe all published articles that have conducted comparisons of model-based effectiveness and cost-effectiveness results in the field of vaccination. Specific objectives were to 1) describe the methodologies used and 2) identify the strengths and limitations of the studies. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase databases for studies that compared predictions of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaccination of two or more mathematical models. We categorized studies into two groups on the basis of their data source for comparison (previously published results or new simulation results) and performed a qualitative synthesis of study conclusions. RESULTS: We identified 115 eligible articles (only 5% generated new simulations from the reviewed models) examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaccination against 14 pathogens (69% of studies examined human papillomavirus, influenza, and/or pneumococcal vaccines). The goal of most of studies was to summarize evidence for vaccination policy decisions, and cost-effectiveness was the most frequent outcome examined. Only 33%, 25%, and 3% of studies followed a systematic approach to identify eligible studies, assessed the quality of studies, and performed a quantitative synthesis of results, respectively. A greater proportion of model comparisons using published studies followed a systematic approach to identify eligible studies and to assess their quality, whereas more studies using new simulations performed quantitative synthesis of results and identified drivers of model conclusions. Most comparative modeling studies concluded that vaccination was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Given the variability in methods used to conduct/report comparative modeling studies, guidelines are required to enhance their quality and transparency and to provide better tools for decision making.

The Impact of Human Papillomavirus Catch-Up Vaccination in Australia: Implications for Introduction of Multiple Age Cohort Vaccination and Postvaccination Data Interpretation.

We used transmission-dynamic modeling to estimate the added effectiveness of vaccinating multiple cohorts of females (12-26 years) in Australia compared with the theoretical introduction of routine-only (12-13 years) vaccination. Our results suggest that vaccinating multiple cohorts produced markedly faster direct/herd effects, and it added benefits that last for 20-70 years. Furthermore, the number needed to vaccinate to prevent 1 anogential warts (AGW) case or cervical cancer (CC) was similar for routine + catch-up (AGW = 9.9, CC = 678) and routine-only vaccination (AGW = 9.9, CC = 677), thus providing similar levels of efficiency per person vaccinated.

Comparison of 2-Dose and 3-Dose 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Schedules in the United States: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

A recent clinical trial using the 9-valent human papillomavirus virus (HPV) vaccine has shown that antibody responses after 2 doses are noninferior to those after 3 doses, suggesting that 2 and 3 doses may have comparable vaccine efficacy. We used an individual-based transmission-dynamic model to compare the population-level effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 2- and 3-dose schedules of 9-valent HPV vaccine in the United States. Our model predicts that if 2 doses of 9-valent vaccine protect for ≥20 years, the additional benefits of a 3-dose schedule are small as compared to those of 2-dose schedules, and 2-dose schedules are likely much more cost-efficient than 3-dose schedules.

Population-Level Effects of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Programs on Infections with Nonvaccine Genotypes.

We analyzed human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalences during prevaccination and postvaccination periods to consider possible changes in nonvaccine HPV genotypes after introduction of vaccines that confer protection against 2 high-risk types, HPV16 and HPV18. Our meta-analysis included 9 studies with data for 13,886 girls and women ≤19 years of age and 23,340 women 20-24 years of age. We found evidence of cross-protection for HPV31 among the younger age group after vaccine introduction but little evidence for reductions of HPV33 and HPV45. For the group this same age group, we also found slight increases in 2 nonvaccine high-risk HPV types (HPV39 and HPV52) and in 2 possible high-risk types (HPV53 and HPV73). However, results between age groups and vaccines used were inconsistent, and the increases had possible alternative explanations; consequently, these data provided no clear evidence for type replacement. Continued monitoring of these HPV genotypes is important.

Potential cost-effectiveness of the nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.

Randomized clinical trials are currently examining the efficacy of a nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, including HPV-types 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the nonavalent is required for timely policy-decisions. We compared the potential cost-effectiveness of the nonavalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines. We used a multi-type individual-based transmission-dynamic model of HPV infection and diseases, 70-year time-horizon, 3% discount rate and healthcare payer perspective. We calibrated the model to Canadian sexual behavior and epidemiologic data, and estimated Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) lost and costs ($CAN 2010) from the literature. Under base-case assumptions (vaccinating 10-year-old girls, 80% coverage, 95$/dose, vaccine-type efficacy = 95%, cross-protection for the quadrivalent vaccine, duration of vaccine-type protection (cross-protection) = 20 (10) years), using the quadrivalent and nonavalent vaccines is estimated to cost $15,528 [12,056; 19,140] and $12,203 [9,331; 17,292] per QALY-gained, respectively. At equal price, the nonavalent vaccine is more cost-effective than the quadrivalent vaccine, even when assuming both shorter duration of protection (nonavalent = 20 years vs. quadrivalent = lifelong) and lower vaccine-type efficacy (nonavalent = 85% vs. quadrivalent = 95%). However, the additional cost per dose of the nonavalent vaccine should not exceed $11 to remain more cost-effective than the quadrivalent vaccine, and $24 to represent a cost-effective alternative to the quadrivalent vaccine (using a $40,000/QALY-gained threshold). The nonavalent vaccine can be a cost-effective alternative to the quadrivalent vaccine, even in scenarios where nonavalent vaccine efficacy is 85%. However, because most cervical cancers are caused by HPV-16/18, it is unlikely that the nonavalent would be used if its efficacy against these types is lower than current HPV vaccines.

Efficacy and immunogenicity of a single dose of human papillomavirus vaccine compared to multidose vaccination regimens or no vaccination: An updated systematic review of evidence from clinical trials.

Objectives: This study systematically reviewed the published literature from clinical trials on the efficacy and immunogenicity of single-dose HPV vaccination compared to multidose schedules or no HPV vaccination. Methods: Four databases were searched for relevant articles published from Jan-1999 to Feb-2023. Articles were assessed for eligibility for inclusion using pre-defined criteria. Relevant data were extracted from eligible articles and a descriptive quality assessment was performed for each study. A narrative data synthesis was conducted, examining HPV infection, other clinical outcomes and immunogenicity responses by dose schedule. Results: Fifteen articles reporting data from six studies (all in healthy young females) were included. One article was included from each of three studies that prospectively randomised participants to receive a single HPV vaccine dose versus one or more comparator schedule(s). The other 12 articles reported data from three studies that randomised participants to receive multidose HPV vaccine (or control vaccine) schedules; in those studies, some participants failed to complete their allocated schedule, and evaluations were conducted to compare participants who actually received one, two or three doses. Across all efficacy studies, the incidence or prevalence of HPV16/18 infection was very low among HPV-vaccinated participants, regardless of the number of doses received; with no evidence for a difference between dose groups. In immunogenicity studies, HPV16/18 antibody seropositivity rates were high among all HPV-vaccinated participants. Antibody levels were significantly lower with one dose compared to two or three doses, but levels with one dose were stable and sustained to 11 years post-vaccination. Conclusions: Results from this review support recent World Health Organization recommendations allowing either one- or two-dose HPV vaccination in healthy young females. Longer-term efficacy and immunogenicity data from ongoing studies are awaited. Randomised trials of single-dose HPV-vaccination are urgently needed in other populations, e.g. boys, older females and people with HIV.

Potential benefit of extended dose schedules of human papillomavirus vaccination in the context of scarce resources and COVID-19 disruptions in low-income and middle-income countries: a mathematical modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts recommended that an extended interval of 3-5 years between the two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine could be considered to alleviate vaccine supply shortages. However, three concerns have limited the introduction of extended schedules: girls could be infected between the two doses, the vaccination coverage for the second dose could be lower at ages 13-14 years than at ages 9-10 years, and identifying girls vaccinated with a first dose to give them the second dose could be difficult. Using mathematical modelling, we examined the potential effect of these concerns on the population-level impact and efficiency of extended dose HPV vaccination schedules. METHODS: We used HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based, transmission-dynamic model of multitype HPV infection and disease, calibrated to country-specific data for four low-income and middle-income countries (India, Viet Nam, Uganda, and Nigeria). For the extended dose scenarios, we varied the vaccination coverage of the second dose among girls previously vaccinated, the one-dose vaccine efficacy, and the one-dose vaccine duration of protection. We also examined a strategy in which girls aged 14 years were vaccinated irrespective of their previous vaccination status. We used a scenario of girls-only two-dose vaccination at age 9 years (vaccine=9 valent, vaccine-type efficacy=100%, duration of protection=lifetime, and coverage=80%) as our comparator. We estimated two outcomes: the relative reduction in the age-standardised cervical cancer incidence (population-level impact) and the number of cervical cancers averted per 100 000 doses (efficiency). FINDINGS: Our model projected substantial reductions in cervical cancer incidence over 100 years with the two-dose schedule (79-86% depending on the country), compared with no vaccination. Projections for the 5-year extended schedule, in which the second dose is given only to girls previously vaccinated at age 9 years, were similar to the current two-dose schedule, unless vaccination coverage of the second dose is very low (reductions in cervical cancer incidence of 71-78% assuming 30% coverage at age 14 years among girls vaccinated at age 9 years). However, when the dose at age 14 years is given to girls irrespective of vaccination status and assuming high vaccination coverage, the model projected a substantially greater reduction in cervical cancer incidence compared with the current two-dose schedule (reductions in cervical cancer incidence of 86-93% assuming 70% coverage at age 14 years, irrespective of vaccination status). Efficiency of the extended schedule was greater than the two-dose schedule, even with a drop in vaccination coverage. INTERPRETATION: The three concerns are unlikely to have a substantial effect on the population-level impact of extended dose schedules. Hence, extended dose schedules will likely provide similar cervical cancer reductions as two-dose schedules, while reducing the number of doses required in the short-term, providing a more efficient use of scarce resources, and offering a 5-year time window to reassess the necessity of the second dose. FUNDING: WHO, Canadian Institute of Health Research Foundation, Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Digital Research Alliance of Canada, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.