Back

Human papillomavirus vaccination at the national level in Tunisia: a cost-effectiveness analysis using a comparative modeling study.

Laraj, O.; Benzina, B.; Gzara, A.; Kebir, A.; Abbas, K.; Ben Miled, S.

2024-09-18 health economics
10.1101/2024.09.17.24313756 medRxiv
Show abstract

Cervical cancer is one of the most prevalent cancer diseases in women caused by persistent infection with one of 13 sexually transmitted high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types. Vaccination can significantly reduce the prevalence of this burden in low-middle income countries. However, HPV vaccination is not included in the Tunisian immunization program. Since the economic evaluation of HPV vaccines is crucial to inform public-health decisions, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that a cost-effectiveness analysis of HPV vaccination is conducted before nationwide introduction. This study aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of incorporating different HPV vaccines into the national immunisation schedule in Tunisia. The potential health and economic impacts of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination were evaluated through comparative modelling analysis using two published static models (UNIVAC and Papillomavirus Rapid Interface for Modelling and Economics (PRIME)). Academic literature and anecdotal evidence were included on the demographic variables, cervical cancer incidence and mortality, treatment costs, vaccine delivery costs and other model parameters. The cost of vaccination, treatment costs saved, net costs, cases and deaths averted, life years saved, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) prevented, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were predicted and reported as primary outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated per disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted using the cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO). All HPV vaccines were very cost effective (with every disability-adjusted life-year averted costing less than the cost-effectiveness threshold). The analyses were done from a health system and societal perspective. Despite model differences, the PRIME and UNIVAC models yielded similar vaccine-impact estimates.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 13%
14.4%
2
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.4%
3
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.8%
4
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
5
Vaccine: X
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
6
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.3%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.6%
9
Journal of Medical Economics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
10
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
11
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.1%
12
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.9%
13
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
15
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
16
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
17
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
18
npj Vaccines
62 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
19
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
21
COVID
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
22
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
23
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
24
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
25
Viruses
318 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
26
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
27
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%