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

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×