MODELING THE COST IMPACT OF POSSIBLE CROSS-PROTECTION DIFFERENCES OF TWO CERVICAL CANCER VACCINES IN CANADA USING MULTIPLE PROBABILISTIC SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Author(s)
Nadia Demarteau, BioIr, MEPC, Health Economist1, Andrea Marie Anonychuk, MSc, Health Outcomes Scientist2, B. Standaert, MD, Director11GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium; 2 GlaxoSmithKline Canada, Mississauga, ON, Canada
Objective: Two vaccines against cervical cancer are now available. One reduces the burden of genital warts; with the other the model estimates it may have better cross-protection against oncogenic non-vaccine HPV-types. We aimed to understand the extent to which cross-protection could have an equivalent cost impact and the likelihood this would occur. Methods: A population model was developed in Excel® to evaluate the expected annual healthcare cost of protecting cervical diseases with vaccines against specific HPV-types. The type-specific vaccine effect was assessed on the number of abnormal pap smears, pre-cancer lesions, genital warts and cervical cancer cases prevented. Vaccine effect was calculated by multiplying the proportion of HPV-types per lesion, as reported in the literature, by a range of vaccine efficacy values. A healthcare perspective was selected, with unit costs (2006 CDN$) for each intervention obtained from official tariff data. No discounting was applied as results are reported over a one-year period after reaching steady-state level of vaccination. Multiple probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate the distribution of the cost difference between the two vaccines by running 5000 iterations with @Risk® software in Excel® (normal distributions for vaccine efficacy, uniform distributions for HPV typing and costs). Results: Multiple probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an average annual cost difference of $9.3M (CDN) (95% CI: -$10M, +$43M) in favor of cross-protection over genital warts protection. Cross-protection provided additional cost saving with an 86.3% probability. An efficacy for additional cross protection of around 12% would achieve cost neutrality. The difference in cost was most sensitive to vaccine efficacy of cross-protection, the proportion of non-vaccine oncogenic HPV-types in CIN1, and the unit cost of treating CIN1. Conclusion: A vaccine with additional cross-protection of at least 12% is likely to offset the costs associated with the protection against genital warts in the Canadian health care system.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2008-05, ISPOR 2008, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Value in Health, Vol. 11, No. 3 (May/June 2008)
Code
PCN15
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Oncology