Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of switching from bivalent to nonavalent vaccine for human papillomavirus in Norway: incorporating the full health impact of all HPV-related diseases

AIMThe objective of this study was to estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of switching from a bivalent to a nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program in Norway, incorporating all nonavalent vaccine-preventable HPV-related diseases and in the context of the latest cervical cancer screening program.METHODSA well-established dynamic transmission model of the natural history of HPV infection and disease was adapted to the Norwegian population. We determined the number of cases of HPV-related diseases and subsequent number of deaths, and the economic burden of HPV-related disease under the current standard of care conditions of bivalent and nonavalent vaccinations of girls and boys aged 12 years.RESULTSCompared to bivalent vaccination, nonavalent vaccination averted an additional 4,357 cases of HPV-related cancers, 421,925 cases of genital warts, and 543 cases of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) over a 100-year time horizon. Nonavalent vaccination also averted an additional 1,044 deaths over the 100-year time horizon when compared with bivalent vaccination. Total costs were higher for the nonavalent strategy (10.5 billion NOK [€1.03 billion] vs. 9.3-9.4 billion NOK [€915-925 million] for bivalent vaccination). A switch to nonavalent vaccination had a higher vaccination cost (4.4 billion NOK [€433 million] vs. 2.7 billion NOK [€266 million] for bivalent vaccination) but resulted in a savings of 627-694 million NOK [€62-68 million] in treatment costs. A switch to nonavalent vaccination demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 102,500 NOK (€10,086) per QALY versus bivalent vaccination.CONCLUSIONSUsing a model that incorporated the full range of HPV-related diseases, and the latest cervical cancer screening practices, we found that switching from bivalent to nonavalent vaccination would be considered cost-effective in Norway.