Evaluación costo-efectividad de dos alternativas de vacunación para el virus del papiloma humano en la prevención del cáncer cervical uterino

• Autores: Bolaños-Díaz, Rafael, Tejada, Romina A, Beltrán, Jessica, Escobedo-Palza, Seimer
• Formato: artículo
• Fecha de Publicación: 2016
• Institución: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas
• Repositorio: UPC-Institucional
• Lenguaje: español
• OAI Identifier: oai:repositorioacademico.upc.edu.pe:10757/622349
• Enlace del recurso: http://hdl.handle.net/10757/622349
• Nivel de acceso: acceso abierto
• Materia: Vacunas contra papillomavirus; Neoplasias del cuello uterino; Condiloma acuminado; Análisis costo-beneficio; Papillomavirus vaccines; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Condylomata acuminata; Cost-benefit analysis

Objectives. To determine the cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cervical lesion screening versus screening alone for the prevention of uterine cervical cancer (UCC). Materials and methods. This cost-effectiveness evaluation from the perspective of the Ministry of Health employed a Markov model with a 70-year time horizon and three alternatives for UCC prevention (screening alone, screening + bivalent vaccine, and screening + quadrivalent vaccine) in a hypothetical cohort of 10-year-old girls. Results. Our model, which was particularly sensitive to variations in coverage and in the prevalence of persistent infection by oncologic genotypes not included in the vaccine, revealed that HPV vaccination and screening is more cost-effective than screening alone, assuming a payment availability from S/ 2 000 (US dollars (USD) 1 290.32) per subject. In the deterministic analysis, the bivalent vaccine was marginally more cost-effective than the quadrivalent vaccine (S/ 48 [USD 30.97] vs. S/ 166 [USD 107.10] per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). However, in the probabilistic analysis, both interventions generated clouds of overlapping points and were thus cost-effective and interchangeable, although the quadrivalent vaccine tended to be more cost-effective. Conclusions. Assuming a payment availability from S/ 2000 [USD 1,290.32], screening and vaccination were more cost-effective than screening alone. The difference in cost-effectiveness between the two vaccines lacked probabilistic robustness, and therefore the vaccines can be considered interchangeable from a cost-effectiveness perspective.