Comparing the cost-effectiveness of two- and three-dose schedules of human papillomavirus vaccination: A transmission-dynamic modelling study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that two doses of HPV vaccines may be as protective as three doses in the short-term. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of two- and three-dose schedules of girls-only and girls & boys HPV vaccination programmes in Canada. METHODS: We used HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based transmission-dynamic model of multi-type HPV infection and diseases (anogenital warts, and cancers of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, penis and oropharynx). We conducted the analysis from the health payer perspective, with a 70-year time horizon and 3% discount rate, and performed extensive sensitivity analyses, including duration of vaccine protection and vaccine cost. FINDINGS: Assuming 80% coverage and a vaccine cost per dose of $85, two-dose girls-only vaccination (vs. no vaccination) produced cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)-gained varying between $7900-24,300. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of giving the third dose to girls (vs. two doses) was below $40,000/QALY-gained when: (i) three doses provide longer protection than two doses and (ii) two-dose protection was shorter than 30 years. Vaccinating boys (with two or three doses) was not cost-effective (vs. girls-only vaccination) under most scenarios investigated. INTERPRETATION: Two-dose HPV vaccination is likely to be cost-effective if its duration of protection is at least 10 years. A third dose of HPV vaccine is unlikely to be cost-effective if two-dose duration of protection is longer than 30 years. Finally, two-dose girls & boys HPV vaccination is unlikely to be cost-effective unless the cost per dose for boys is substantially lower than the cost for girls.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".