Search

Background: A bivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (2vHPV) is currently used in the Netherlands; a nonavalent vaccine (9vHPV) is also licensed., Research Design and Methods: We compared the public health and economic benefits of 2vHPV- and 9vHPV-based vaccination strategies in the Netherlands over 100 years using a validated deterministic dynamic transmission metapopulation model., Results: Compared to 2vHPV, the 9vHPV strategy averted an additional 3,245 cases of and 825 deaths from 9vHPV-strain-attributable cancers, 4,247 cases of and 190 deaths from recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP), and 1,009,637 cases of anogenital warts (AGWs), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4,975 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The ICER increased in a scenario with increased HPV vaccination coverage rates and was relatively robust to one-way deterministic sensitivity analyses, with variation in the disease utility parameter having the most impact. When catch-up vaccination for individuals ≤26 years of age was added to the model, vaccinating with 9vHPV averted additional cancers and AGWs compared to 2vHPV vaccination., Conclusion: Our analyses predict that transitioning from a 2vHPV- to a 9vHPV-based vaccination strategy would be cost-effective in the Netherlands.

Objectives: Data from a vaccine trial and from post-vaccine surveillance in the United Kingdom have suggested that the bivalent HPV-16/18 vaccine offers cross-protection against HPV-6/11 and protection against anogenital warts (AGW). We studied the effect of the bivalent vaccine on genital HPV-6/11 positivity and AGW in the Netherlands.Methods: We included all vaccine-eligible women from the PASSYON study, a biennial cross-sectional study among 16- to 24-year-old sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinic attendants. Vaginal self-swabs were analyzed for type specific HPV and AGW were diagnosed at the STI-clinic. Prevalence of HPV-6 and/or HPV-11 and AGW were compared between self-reported vaccinated and unvaccinated women by log-binomial regression analysis, adjusted for demographics and risk behavior.Results: Of the 1198 women included, 56% reported to be vaccinated at least once. Relative to unvaccinated women, the adjusted prevalence ratio (PR) for HPV-6/11 was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.43) for women vaccinated at least once. The crude PR for AGW was 0.67 (95% CI 0.22-2.07) for women vaccinated at least once. Adjustment did not change these results.Conclusions: We observed no cross-protective effect of the bivalent vaccine on genital HPV-6/11 positivity and a non-significant partially protective effect on AGW. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is becoming clear that there are significant differences between the two principal human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, namely the bivalent vaccine and the quadrivalent vaccine. Both vaccines contain HPV16 and HPV18, together responsible for approximately 73% of cases of cervical cancer. The quadrivalent vaccine also contains HPV6 and HPV11, thus protecting against genital warts. Real-world data show 89% efficacy for the bivalent vaccine against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia stage 3, irrespective of the HPV type involved, versus 64% for the quadrivalent vaccine. This suggests superior cross-reactivity of the bivalent vaccine against oncogenic HPV types not contained in the vaccine, presumably thanks to the MPLA adjuvant in the vaccine. In the Netherlands, the cross-reactivity of the bivalent vaccine may ultimately lead to a significant additional reduction of cervical cancer deaths per year. Since protection against genital warts should not be pursued at the expense of protection against cervical cancer, we recommend that the Netherlands continue to use the bivalent vaccine in its national immunisation programme.