Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Feb 11;16(2):e0245894. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245894

The epidemiologic and economic impact of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in Thailand

Wichai Termrungruanglert 1,*, Nipon Khemapech 1, Apichai Vasuratna 1, Piyalamporn Havanond 1, Preyanuch Deebukkham 2, Amit Sharad Kulkarni 3, Andrew Pavelyev 3
Editor: Luca Giannella4
PMCID: PMC7877776  PMID: 33571186

Abstract

Background

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was introduced into Thailand’s national immunization program in 2017 for 11–12 year old school girls. The objectives of this study were to examine the epidemiological consequences and cost-effectiveness of a routine quadrivalent HPV (4vHPV) vaccination and the routine 4vHPV vaccination plus 5-year catch-up vaccination by comparing with cervical cancer screening only (no vaccination) in Thailand.

Method

A transmission dynamic model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the routine 4vHPV vaccination and the routine 4vHPV vaccination plus catch-up vaccination, compared with no vaccination (screening only) in Thai population. The vaccination coverage rate assumptions were 95% in 11-12-year-old girls for the routine vaccination and 70% in 13–24 year-old females for the 5-year catch-up vaccination. Vaccination costs, direct medical costs of HPV-related diseases, and the number of quality of life years (QALYs) gained were calculated for over a 100-year time horizon with discount rate of 3%.

Result

The model indicated that the routine 4vHPV vaccination and the routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination strategies could prevent approximately 434,130 and 472,502 cumulative cases of cervical cancer, 182,234 and 199,068 cumulative deaths from cervical cancer and 12,708,349 and 13,641,398 cumulative cases of HPV 6/11 related genital warts, respectively, when compared with no vaccination over 100 years. The estimated cost per QALY gained (ICER) when compared to no vaccination in Thailand was 8,370 THB/QALY for the routine vaccination and 9,650 THB/QALY for the routine with catch-up vaccination strategy.

Conclusion

Considering the recommended threshold of 160,000 THB/QALY for Thailand, the implementation of the routine 4vHPV vaccination either alone or plus the catch-up vaccination was cost-effective as compared to the cervical cancer screening only.

Introduction

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the most common sexually transmitted infection for both women and men, and can be passed through genital or skin-to-skin contact [1, 2]. HPV infection occurs almost immediately after becoming sexually active. Around half of these cases involve high-risk HPVs that are responsible for 5% of all cancers worldwide with 570,000 newly diagnosed female patients, and 60,000 newly diagnosed male patients annually [3] HPV vaccines, or HPV-virus-like particles (VLPs), effectively prevent HPV infections [4]. HPV not only causes cervical cancer but also many other cancer types including oropharyngeal cancers, anal cancer, penile cancer, vaginal cancer, and vulvar cancer. HPV is known to be responsible for between >60% (penile cancer) and almost 100% (cervical cancer) of these HPV-related cancers [5]. In 2018, Thailand reported 8,622 new cases of cervical cancer and 5,015 deaths [6], making it a leading cause of death in women as well as a national public health problem [68].

To address the public health problems and reduce mortality rates, Thailand introduced the HPV vaccine into the national immunization program in 2017 for grade 5 schoolgirls aged 11–12 years. The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of the results from a model developed to assess and test the public health and economic impact of quadrivalent HPV vaccination programs in Thailand. Specifically, this study aims to estimate:

  1. The potential health effects and economic costs associated with the introduction of routine prophylactic vaccination with a 4vHPV vaccine [9, 10] in Thailand among 11–12 year old girls, along with cervical cancer screening. These health effects include those associated with the HPV types 6,11,16,18 related incidences of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), cervical cancer, genital warts, and cervical cancer mortality in the population of Thailand.

  2. The potential health effects and economic costs associated with the introduction of the routine vaccination among 11–12 year old girls along-with a catch-up vaccination of 13–24 year old females, and cervical cancer screening.

  3. The cost-effectiveness of routine 4vHPV vaccination along with screening, and routine 4vHPV vaccination along with catch-up 4vHPV vaccination and screening, compared with no vaccination (cervical screening only).

Materials and methods

A previously published transmission dynamic model by Elbasha & Dasbach [11] for the United States has been adapted for Thailand. The model estimates epidemiological and economic consequences of the use of the quadrivalent prophylactic vaccine against HPV 6/11/16/18 with cervical cancer screening. The model took into account both direct benefit to the vaccinated individuals and the benefit from herd immunity effect in the estimation. Individuals enter the model as they are born; move between successive age groups at an age and gender specific rate per year, and exit the model as they die.

Target population

The target population for routine vaccination with 4vHPV is school girls aged 11–12 years old. The target population for catch-up vaccination is girls and women aged 13–24 years old. The impact will be estimated for the entire population of Thailand

Scenarios

In the base case, the three scenarios being compared are: 1. Cervical cancer screening alone without vaccination (no vaccination), 2. Routine 4vHPV vaccination of girls aged 11–12 years old, along with the screening (routine 4vHPV vaccination), and 3. Routine 4vHPV vaccination of girls aged 11–12 years old plus catch-up vaccination of females 13–24 years old along with the screening (called “routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination” in this article).

Demographic and sexual mixing model inputs

The model developed simulates aging, all-cause mortality over time and HPV transmission within the Thai population through sexual mixing. Data on population size, age and gender specific all-cause mortality rates were taken from the Health Information Group, while data on sexual mixing were adapted from Elbasha & Dasbach [12]. Details on the sexual behaviors of the population and the parameters used in the model calibration are provided in S1 Table.

Epidemiologic and clinical inputs

The age specific annual cervical cytology screening rates for Thailand were estimated based on Thai data from the 2009 Reproductive Health Survey [9], Center of Policy and Strategy of Ministry of Public Health (3rd National Survey on Thai Health 2004–2005) [13] and expert opinion (Table 1). In addition, based on the data from WHO/ICO Information Centre on HPV and Cervical Cancer 2010 [14], it was estimated that only 37.7% of Thai female population received adequate cervical cancer screening every year (defined as screening received once in 3 years).

Table 1. Screening and treatment parameters.

Routine cervical cytology screening, excluding those with hysterectomy (% per year)
Age group Screening rate Source
10–14 years 0.00 1) Center of Policy and Strategy, Ministry of Public Health; 3rd National Survey on Thai Health 2004–2005 [13]
2) The 2009 Reproductive Health Survey, National Statistical Office Ministry of Information and Communication Technology of Thailand [9]
3) Expert opinion
15–19 years 3.50
20–24 years 15.80
25–29 years 30.00
30–34 years 28.30
35–39 years 38.24
40–44 years 40.50
45–49 years 42.69
50–54 years 40.24
55–59 years 33.86
60–64 years 15.00
65–69 years 10.00
70–74 years 5.00
75–79 years 3.0
80–84 years 2.00
85 + years 0.00
Percent of female population that receives cervical cancer screening test at least once every 3 years
Women adequately screened (% per year) 37.7 WHO/ICO 2010 [14]
Percent of women with a follow-up screening test following an abnormal PAP result 68 Sirisamutr et al 2012 [19]
Recognize symptoms and seek treatment, % per year
Localized cervical cancer 2.6 (adjustable) Elbasha & Dasbach 2010 [12]
Regional cervical cancer 10 (adjustable) Elbasha & Dasbach 2010 [12]
Distant cervical cancer 90 (adjustable) Elbasha & Dasbach 2010 [12]
Proportion of CIN/CIS is treated, by stage (%)
Percent of CIN 1 treated 40 Expert opinion
Percent of CIN 2 treated 75
Percent of CIN 3 treated 75
Percent of CIS treated 75
Proportion of genital warts cases treated (%)
Percent of genital warts treated 40 Expert opinion
Hysterectomy for non–HPV-related conditions rate (per year)
Age Groups Rate Source
15–24 years 0.02 Unpublished Data: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University plus expert opinion
25–29 years 0.26
30–34 years 0.53
35–39 years 0.89
40–44 years 1.17
45–54 years 0.99
55+ years 0.36

* CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; CIS, carcinoma in situ

We utilized data based on expert opinion (Table 1) for the percentage of all diagnosed cases of CIN 1 including mild dysplasia and condyloma acuminata (anogenital warts), CIN 2 which includes moderate dysplasia, and CIN 3 including severe dysplasia and carcinoma in situ (CIS) that are treated in Thailand. Data on other clinical parameters, such as sensitivity and specificity of cervical cytology and colposcopy tests, CIN treatment cure rates, persistence of HPV infections after treatment were estimated based on data from the literature review done by Insinga et al. [15]. Annual Thai age specific hysterectomy rates were estimated based on unpublished data from Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and expert opinion (Table 1). Consistent with the range of values examined in previous cost-effectiveness studies of HPV vaccines [1618], in our reference case analysis, we assumed lifetime duration of vaccine protection against HPV types 6/11/16/18.

Quality of life measures

Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated based on the following health utility measures: (a) Utilities for HPV disease states as reported for the U.S. model [11], and (b) Age and sex specific utility values for without HPV infection [20] (S1 Table).

HPV vaccination strategies and characteristics

We assumed that the 4vHPV vaccination strategy will be combined with current cervical cancer screening and HPV disease treatment practices in Thailand. We examined the health and economic impacts of three different scenarios: 1) no vaccination, 2) routine 4vHPV vaccination; and 3) routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination. All scenarios were evaluated assuming that the current cervical cancer screening would remain at a constant rate throughout the time horizon of the evaluations. Based on the local experience with other vaccines in Thailand [21], we assumed that for the routine 4vHPV vaccination, 95% of all girls 11–12 years of age received the routine regimen. For the catch-up vaccination, it was assumed that 70% of females between 13–24 years were vaccinated in the first 5 years. Girls younger than 13 received 2 doses, while older females received three doses.

Economic data

We adopted a healthcare perspective to assess costs. The costs were broken down into 3 categories including costs of vaccination, cervical cancer screening and costs of treatment in Thailand. Cost data and corresponding references can be found in S1 Table. We assumed a cost of 500.00 THB per vaccine dose (≈ US$15) for each vaccine that was administered. The price in USD was estimated based on conversion rate of 1 USD /34.35 THB from http://finance.yahoo.com/currency-converter/#from=USD;to=THB;amt=1 accessed on April 3rd 2017. The cost per vaccine dose used was the cost proposed to pay in 2012 by the Ministry of Public Health of Thailand [22, 23]. Non-medical costs (e.g. transportation) and indirect costs (e.g. productivity loss) were not included in the analysis. Costs and health benefits (QALYs) were discounted by 3% [24].

Model outputs

We used a number of outcome measures to assess the epidemiologic impact and cost-effectiveness of each vaccination strategy. Epidemiologic outputs included CIN 2/3, CIN 1, invasive cervical cancer, genital warts cases for females and males, and cervical cancer related deaths. The economic outputs of interest from the model included total costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost per QALY. We measured the cost per QALY ratio as the incremental cost difference between the two strategies divided by the incremental QALY difference between the two strategies (i.e. Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio, ICER).

Model calibration

We assessed the predictive validity of the model by calibrating model predictions to the observed data of the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in Thailand that was attributable to HPV 16/18. We also calibrated the model to the incidence rate of genital warts estimated from available data.

The total crude cervical cancer incidence rate in Thailand was reported as 29.2 per 100,000 [25] of which approximately 73.8% [14], i.e. ≈ 21.55 per 100,000, was assumed to be attributable to HPV 16/18. The corresponding crude cervical cancer mortality rate was reported as 12.7 per 100,000 [25] of which approximately 73.8% [14], i.e. 9.37 per 100,000, was assumed to be attributable to HPV 16/18. The model was calibrated using cervical cancer recognition and transmission probability parameters. At the beginning of the calibration process, all parameters were set to the values taken from Elbasha & Dasbach [12]. Then the cervical cancer recognition parameters were adjusted to obtain the observed cervical cancer incidence rate to cervical cancer mortality rate ratio (i.e. 21.55/9.37 ≈ 2.30). After that we adjusted the per sexual partnership transmission probability of HPV 16/18. Incidence rates for genital warts were 231 per 100,000 [8]. Approximately 90%, i.e. ≈ 208 per 100,000, were attributable to HPV 6/11.

Sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine how changes in the vaccination programs (routine vaccination and routine plus catch-up vaccination) or health-related benefit (health-related benefits, specifically HPV6/11-related genital lesions with and without HPV 6/11 related benefits) influenced the estimated cost-effectiveness ratio (Cost/QALY).

Horizon

Analysis was performed for 100-year time horizon, with 5 years interval to allow for the complete health and economic vaccination impact, in alignment with Elbasha et al. [11].

Cost effectiveness analysis

To assess the cost effectiveness of the vaccination strategy in preventing the disease, the model estimated the total discounted costs and effects (i.e., QALYs) accrued over the 100 year time horizon for both vaccine strategies that were being evaluated (i.e. no vaccination scenario, the routine vaccination of 11–12 year old girls, and routine vaccination of 11–12 year old girls plus the catch-up vaccination of 13–24 year old females). Next, the model calculated the incremental cost incurred to achieve the incremental benefit from vaccination. This was then used to calculate the ICER (the ratio of the incremental costs to incremental QALYs gained).

Results

Public health impact of the HPV vaccination strategies

Impact on the HPV6/11/16/18-related diseases

The routine 4vHPV vaccination and the routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination strategies would cumulatively prevent cervical cancer for 434,130 cases (62.1%) and 472,502 cases (67.6%) over 100 years respectively when compared to no vaccination. The model predicted that HPV16/18 related deaths over 100 years would be reduced by 182,234 cases (59.6%) and 199,068 cases (65.1%) for the routine 4vHPV vaccination and the routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination strategies, respectively when compared to no vaccination.

The routine 4vHPV vaccination would also cumulatively prevent 1,984,634 cases of HPV16/18 related CIN1, 4,045,772 cases of HPV16/18 related CIN2/3, 533,677 cases of HPV6/11 related CIN1 and 12,708,349 cases of HPV6/11 related genital warts among women and men over 100 years, compared with no vaccination. Case reductions for the routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination were higher than that for routine 4vHPV vaccination. The routine plus catch-up vaccination would also cumulatively prevent 2,133,772 cases of HPV16/18 related CIN1, 4,346,356 cases of HPV16/18 related CIN2/3, 574,097 cases of HPV6/11 related CIN1 and 13,641,398 cases of HPV6/11 related genital warts among women and men compared with no vaccination. Table 2 shows the cumulative case and percent reduction of these outcomes over 0, 5, 25, and 100 years. (S1 Fig provides the graphical presentations of the estimated number of the disease events in the routine vaccination and the routine plus catch-up vaccination in a population of 100,000 over 100 years)

Table 2. Estimated cumulative reductions of the HPV-related disease outcomes at Thai population level over 100 years.
Health related outcome Routine 4vHPV vaccination vs no vaccination Routine and catch-up 4vHPV vaccination vs no vaccination
5 yrs 25 yrs 50 yrs 100 yrs 5 yrs 25 yrs 50 yrs 100 yrs
Cumulative case reductiona
HPV16/18 related deaths 0 1932 38212 182234 1 5273 5237 199068
Cervical cancer 0 8060 102342 434130 16 18638 135675 472502
HPV16/18 CIN1 106 143844 706943 1984634 4262 254545 853427 2133722
CIN2/3 198 299419 1449621 4045772 81183 521514 1734445 4346356
HPV6/11 Genital warts
    In female 4837 867965 2679925 6372998 106799 1324470 3156476 6849994
    In male 1490 725258 2536286 6335351 51514 1137032 2990177 6791404
HPV6/11 related CIN1 78 60061 214666 533677 3980 97495 255033 574097
Cumulative % reductionb
HPV16/18 related deaths 0 2.5 25.0 59.6 0.0 6.9 34.3 65.1
Cervical cancer 0 4.6 29.3 62.1 0.0 10.7 38.8 67.6
HPV16/18 CIN1 0.1 22.0 54.2 76.1 3.3 39.0 65.4 81.8
CIN2/3 0.1 22.5 54.1 76.0 3.1 39.2 65.1 81.6
HPV6/11 Genital warts
    In female 1.3 47.0 72.5 86.3 28.9 71.7 85.5 92.7
    In male 0.4 38.1 66.7 83.3 13.4 59.8 78.6 89.3
HPV6/11 related CIN1 0.2 37.6 67.3 83.6 12.5 61.1 79.9 90.0

a. Cases rounded to nearest 1.

b. Percentages round to nearest 0.1

Impact on healthcare cost

At population level, the routine vaccination and the routine plus catch-up vaccination strategies were projected to avoid the direct medical costs of the HPV-related diseases for 57,471,932,088 THB and 69,487,905,607 THB over 100 years when compared to no vaccination, respectively. Approximately three-fourths of the treatment costs avoided were from HPV16/18-related treatment costs (77.2% for routine vaccination and 77.0% for routine plus catch-up vaccination) and one-fourth were HPV6/11-related treatment costs (22.8% and 23.0%, correspondingly). (S2A and S2B Fig present the estimated healthcare costs avoided over 100 years by HPV genotypes at population levels of the routine vaccination and the routine plus catch-up vaccination when compared to no vaccination.) The estimated vaccination costs over 100 years were 17,108,393,827 THB and 24,943,313,705 THB for the routine vaccination and the routine plus catch-up vaccination respectively. (Table 3 and S2 Fig)

Table 3. Estimated costs over 100 years at population level.
Cost Estimated cumulative costs over 100 years (THB)
No vaccination (screening only) Routine 4vHPV vaccination Routine and catch-up 4vHPV vaccination
Direct medical costs of HPV-related diseases treatment
Cervical cancer 77,212,923,754 52,312,413,664 47,143,360,147
HPV16/18 CIN1 1,774,039,845 908,082,629 728,196,733
CIN2/3 38,293,570,197 19,706,623,671 15,922,378,541
HPV6/11 Genital warts
    In male 10,283,135,581 4,020,431,254 2,692,431,841
    In female 9,986,580,109 3,366,656,208 1,864,840,212
HPV6/11 related CIN1 396,580,852 160,732,517 107,751,083
Total direct medical costs of HPV-related diseases treatment 137,946,830,338 80,474,939,944 68,458,958,556
HPV-related disease costs avoided* 57,471,932,088 69,487,905,607
Vaccination cost 0 17,108,393,827 24,943,313,705

* Net when compared to no vaccination.

Cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination strategy

Base case analysis

Under base-case analysis, the estimated incremental costs per person by adding the routine 4vHPV vaccination and the routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination, compared with no vaccination, were 337.28 THB and 476.52 THB, respectively and the estimated QALY gained were 0.040 and 0.049, respectively. The estimated cost per QALY gained by adding the routine 4vHPV vaccination and the routine plus catch-up vaccination to the existing cervical cancer screening were 8,370 and 9,650 THB, respectively (Table 4).

Table 4. Estimated cost per QALY gained by adding routine 4vHPV vaccination or routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination to cervical cancer screening in Thailand.
Discounted Total Incremental
Costs/Person (THB) QALYs/Person Costs/Person (THB) QALYs/Person Costs/QALYs (THB)
Base case
Screening only (no vaccination) 30,183.6 28.53312 -- -- --
Routine 4vHPV vaccination 30,520.9 28.59342 337.28 0.04029 8,370
Routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination 30,660.1 28.60250 476.52 0.04938 9,650
Sensitivity analysis
Base case with excluding HPV 6/11 health related disease
Screening only (no vaccination) 29,836.8 28.55760 -- -- --
Routine 4vHPV vaccination 30,404.1 28.59511 540.28 0.03751 14,420
Routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination 30,587.9 28.60458 724.13 0.04599 15,747

Costs rounded to 0.01, QALYs rounded to 0.00001, and Costs/QALYs rounded to 1

Comparing to screening only strategy.

ICER = CostsinthevaccinationStrategyCostinscreeningonlyQALYinthevaccinationStrategyQALYinscreeningonly

Sensitivity analysis

We conducted a variety of sensitivity analyses to test the effect of certain parameters on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Excluding of HPV 6/11 related benefits resulted in an increase of the estimated cost per QALY gained by 72.3% for routine vaccination programs and by 63.2% for routine plus catch-up program.

Model calibration and validation

The model predicted with the current screening, in the absence of vaccination, an annual HPV16/18 related cervical cancer incidence of about 21.6 per 100,000 females compared to 21.55, (i.e. with a relative error of approximately 1%). In addition, the model predicted an annual HPV 16/18 related cervical cancer mortality of about 9.45 per 100,000 females compared to 9.37, (i.e. with a relative error of less than 1%). The model also predicted the overall incidence of HPV 6/11 related genital warts to be about 229 per 100,000 per year in females and about 235 per 100,000 per year in males compared to 208 and 208 per 100,000 correspondingly.

Discussion

We examined the health and economic impact of 4vHPV vaccination in Thailand by adapting a previously developed transmission dynamic model [11]. The cost of vaccine used in this study was the cost proposed to pay by the Ministry of Public Health of Thailand in 2012 in order to incorporate the HPV vaccine into the national program [22, 23]. This vaccine cost was lower than the selling price by the private hospitals in Thailand but higher than the willingness to pay by the parents if it was not offered for free [26]. The prices of HPV vaccines were declined with the passage of time due to many reasons, e.g. competitive tendering of prices [27, 28], the involvement of organizations, such as the Global Alliance for Vaccine Initiative (GAVI), the World Health Organization, United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), and the World Bank and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that were established to help children worldwide, to improve the access to vaccines [27, 28], and having more suppliers more competition [27]. The affordable prices of vaccines could be achieved through tender procedures because vaccine pricing is affected by contract volume and its duration, country, per capita gross domestic product (GDP), and the number of offers received [27, 28].

The results indicated that introducing a national immunization program with a 4vHPV vaccine (types 6/11/16/18) for girls aged 11–12 years in Thailand may reduce the incidence and cost associated with HPV 6/11/16/18 related cervical cancer, precancerous lesion and genital warts in Thailand. All cases avoided in the first few years of the vaccination program were due to reduction in the incidence of genital warts and CIN. The effect of the routine vaccination strategy as well as routine plus catch-up vaccination was to steadily reduce the incidence of HPV16/18 related cervical cancer cases and deaths. Compared to the routine vaccination, the routine plus catch-up program demonstrates a higher reduction in the incidence rates of HPV related disease.

The reduction of HPV6/11 related genital warts cases in male results from the herd immunity benefits of female vaccination and shares similar qualitative features with those of cervical cancer. However, because CIN 2/3, CIN 1, and genital warts occur sooner following HPV infection, the curves are shifted to the left compared with the cervical cancer curves. These shifts mean that the reduction in genital warts, CIN1, and CIN2/3 will occur sooner than cervical cancer after the implementation of HPV vaccination which has a positive impact on health care benefits. This shift was most pronounced in the curves for HPV 6/11 related CIN1 and genital warts (S1C and S1D Fig). In both cases about 77% of the avoided costs was due to the reduction in HPV16/18 related treatments over the 100- year period (S2A and S2B Fig). Vaccination results in reductions in direct medical cost of HPV related disease, which are greater than the increase in vaccine costs. However, the incremental cost is still higher for vaccination scenarios because of the increases in cost of screening, which increases with increases in life expectancy.

WHO recommends the use of the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita as thresholds to derive the following three categories of cost effectiveness: highly cost effective (less than one GDP per capita), cost effective (between one and three times GDP per capita), and not cost-effective (more than three times GDP per capita) [29]. In 2014 the Thailand threshold for cost effectiveness was about 160,000 THB/QALY [30]. Therefore, the incremental cost per QALY (ICER) estimated by the model to be 8,370 THB/QALY indicates that routine 4vHPV vaccination is a highly cost effective strategy in Thailand. In the sensitivity analyses, the cost-effectiveness of the 11–12 year old female vaccination strategy in Thailand was relatively robust.

Limitations

The results of this analysis should be interpreted with the following limitations. Firstly, there is a limitation in the availability of Thai specific data in a key number of parameters, including data on the incidence of genital warts, CIN1, and CIN2/3 in the general population, therefore we could not calibrate the model to these outcomes. The model was calibrated specifically to cervical cancer incidences rates, mortality rates and genital warts and hence is conservative as no other cancers (such as vulvar, vaginal, anal, head and neck and penile cancers) were taken into consideration. Secondly, only direct medical costs were included. This potentially underestimates the benefits of vaccination. In this case, we used the default model parameters. In addition, the computation of ICER (Cost/QALY gained) is based on direct cost medical variables. Indirect medical cost and other non-medical economic variables are not used.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our study demonstrates that the routine quadrivalent HPV vaccination of 11–12 years girls can be a highly cost effective intervention in Thailand that can substantially reduce the burden of cervical diseases and genital warts. Introduction of the 5 year catch-up program for 13–24 year old females along with the routine vaccination of 11–12 year old girls has an even higher impact on the reduction of cervical diseases and genital warts.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Estimated number of HPV-related disease events over 100 years in the routine 4vHPV vaccination, routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination, compared to no vaccination (cervical cancer screening only) in a Thai population of 100,000 (base case analysis).

A, Estimated HPV 16/18 Related Incidence of Cervical Cancer Among Females over 100 Years; B, Estimated HPV 16/18 Related Cervical Cancer Deaths Among Females over 100 years; C, Estimated HPV 16/18 Related incidence of CIN1 Among Females over 100 years; D, Estimated HPV 16/18 Related Incidence of CIN 2/3 Among Females over 100 years; E, Estimated HPV 6/11 Related Incidence of CIN1 Among Females over 100 years; F, Estimated HPV 6/11 Related Incidence of Genital Warts Among Females over 100 years.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Estimated HPV-related treatment costs avoided over 100 years by HPV genotypes in Thailand when compared to no vaccination (screening only).

A, For routine 4vHPV vaccination; and B, For routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. All-cause mortality and cervical cancer mortality.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Sexual behavior parameters.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Quality-of-life parameters.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Costs of diagnosing and treating HPV disease in Thailand (THB).

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Article processing charge was provided by MSD (Thailand) Ltd.

References

  • 1.Genital HPV Infection—Fact Sheet. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2019 [updated August 20, 2019Sep 20, 2019]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm.
  • 2.Braaten KP, Laufer MR. Human Papillomavirus (HPV), HPV-Related Disease, and the HPV Vaccine. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008;1(1):2–10. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer. World Health Organization.; 2015 [updated 24 January 201919 Apr 2019]. Available from: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-papillomavirus-(hpv)-and-cervical-cancer.
  • 4.De Vincenzo R, Ricci C, Conte C, Scambia G. HPV vaccine cross-protection: Highlights on additional clinical benefit. Gynecologic Oncology. 2013;130(3):642–51. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.HPV and Cancer National Cancer Institute at the National Institute of Health; 2019 [updated May 28, 2019]. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents/hpv-and-cancer.
  • 6.Bruni L, Albero G, Serrano B, Mena M, Gómez D, Muñoz J, et al. ICO/IARC Information Centre on HPV and Cancer (HPV Information Centre). Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases in Thailand. Summary Report 17 June 2019. [Date Accessed 13 DEC 2020] (URL:https://www.hpvcentre.net/statistics/reports/THA.pdf). 2019.
  • 7.Sharma M, Ortendahl J, van der Ham E, Sy S, Kim JJ. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening in Thailand. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 2012;119(2):166–76. Epub 2011/04/13. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02974.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Termrungruanglert W, Havanond P, Khemapech N, Lertmaharit S, Pongpanich S, Khorprasert C, et al. Cost and effectiveness evaluation of prophylactic HPV vaccine in developing countries. Value in health: the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2012;15(1 Suppl):S29–34. Epub 2012/02/01. 10.1016/j.jval.2011.11.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.The Reproductive Health Survey 2009. [Internet]. National Statistical Office Ministry of Information and Communication Technology of Thailand. [cited Sep 9, 2017]. Available from: http://www.nso.go.th/sites/2014en/Pages/survey/Social/Health/The-Reproductive-Health-Survey-2009.aspx.
  • 10.Villa LL, Costa RLR, Petta CA, Andrade RP, Paavonen J, Iversen OE, et al. High sustained efficacy of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus types 6/11/16/18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine through 5 years of follow-up. Br J Cancer. 2006;95(11):1459–66. Epub 11/21. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603469 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Elbasha EH, Dasbach EJ, Insinga RP. Model for assessing human papillomavirus vaccination strategies. Emerging infectious diseases. 2007;13(1):28–41. Epub 2007/03/21. 10.3201/eid1301.060438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Elbasha EH, Dasbach EJ. Impact of vaccinating boys and men against HPV in the United States. Vaccine. 2010;28(42):6858–67. Epub 2010/08/18. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.08.030 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Center of Policy and Strategy, Ministry of Public Health; 3rd National Survey on Thai Health 2004–2005.
  • 14.WHO/ICO Information Centre on HPV and Cervical Cancer (HPV Information Centre). Human Papillomavirus and Related Cancers in Thailand. Summary Report 2010.
  • 15.Insinga RP, Dasbach EJ, Elbasha EH. Epidemiologic natural history and clinical management of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Disease: a critical and systematic review of the literature in the development of an HPV dynamic transmission model. BMC infectious diseases. 2009;9:119 Epub 2009/07/31. 10.1186/1471-2334-9-119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Stratton KR, Durch JS, Lawrence RS. Vaccines for the 21st Century: A Tool for Decisionmaking. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, Bastian L, Matchar DB. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. American journal of epidemiology. 2000;151(12):1158–71. Epub 2000/07/25. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010166 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sanders GD, Taira AV. Cost-effectiveness of a potential vaccine for human papillomavirus. Emerging infectious diseases. 2003;9(1):37–48. Epub 2003/01/21. 10.3201/eid0901.020168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sirisamutr T, Butchon R, Putchong C, Sriplung H, Praditsitthikorn N, Ingsrisawang L, et al. The Evaluation of Outcomes and Determinants of Cervial Cancer Screening Programme Using Pap Smear and Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid in Thailand during 2005–2009. Journal of Health Science 2012:538–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Golicki D, Jakubczyk M, Niewada M, Wrona W, Busschbach JJ. Valuation of EQ-5D health states in Poland: first TTO-based social value set in Central and Eastern Europe. Value in health: the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2010;13(2):289–97. Epub 2009/09/12. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00596.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Coe M, Gergen J. “Thailand Country Brief (August 2017)”. Sustainable Immunization Financing in Asia Pacific. (URL: https://thinkwell.global/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Thailand-Country-Brief-081618.pdf) Access Date 14 DEC 2020. Washington, DC: ThinkWell.: ThinkWell.; 2017.
  • 22.Ngorsuraches S, Nawanukool K, Petcharamanee K, Poopantrakool U. Parents’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for human papilloma virus vaccines in Thailand. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2015;8(1):20–. 10.1186/s40545-015-0040-8 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sajirawattanakul D, Krittin P. Govt urged to drop HPV vaccine plan. (Apr 09. 2012). The Nation Thailand. 2012.
  • 24.Permsuwan U, Guntawongwan K, Buddhawongsa P. Handling time in economic evaluation studies. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet. 2014;97 Suppl 5:S50–8. Epub 2014/06/27. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. International journal of cancer. 2010;127(12):2893–917. Epub 2011/02/26. 10.1002/ijc.25516 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kruiroongroj S, Chaikledkaew U, Thavorncharoensap M. Knowledge, acceptance, and willingness to pay for human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination among female parents in Thailand. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP. 2014;15(13):5469–74. Epub 2014/07/22. 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.13.5469 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hussain R, Bukhari NI, ur Rehman A, Hassali MA, Babar Z-U-D. Vaccine Prices: A Systematic Review of Literature. Vaccines. 2020;8(4):629 10.3390/vaccines8040629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Jacobson S. Vaccine pricing: how can we get it right? Expert Rev Vaccines. 2012;11:1163–5. 10.1586/erv.12.95 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bertram MY, Lauer JA, De Joncheere K, Edejer T, Hutubessy R, Kieny MP, et al. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2016;94(12):925–30. Epub 2016/12/21. 10.2471/BLT.15.164418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Teerawattananon Y, Tritasavit N, Suchonwanich N, Kingkaew P. The use of economic evaluation for guiding the pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen. 2014;108(7):397–404. Epub 2014/12/03. 10.1016/j.zefq.2014.06.017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Luca Giannella

9 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-29823

The Epidemiologic and Economic Impact of a Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in Thailand.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Termrungruanglert,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 17 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luca Giannella

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:

Article processing charge (if any) was provided by MSD (Thailand) Ltd.

WT (corresponding author), NK, AV, and PH declare that they have no competing interests.  PD was employee of MSD (Thailand) Ltd., during the study initiation and manuscript preparation.  ASK and AP are employees of Merck & Co., Inc"

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

5. Please upload a copy of Figure 1 to which you refer in your text on page 14. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: It’s an interesting work relating to the epidemiological consequences and cost-effectiveness of the HPV vaccine. In this study, the cost-effect analysis was used to evaluate the cost and the health benefits of HPV vaccination among all eligible women in Thailand. However, there are some questions that need to be confirmed and revised, which is associated with the conclusions of the study.

The key points of this study might be the cost of the HPV vaccine and the cost of cervical cancer screening. However, the price of the vaccine is cheaper than in other countries, and the baseline of the screening is longer than the guidelines.

Major

1. “We assumed a cost of 500.00 THB 1 per vaccine dose (≈US$15) for each vaccine that was administered”

Is the price of 4vHPV vaccination so cheap? Generally speaking, the price of 4vHPV vaccination per vaccine dose is US$125. I think this price needs to be confirmed.

2. The recommended screening for cervical cancer is HPV plus TCT liquid-based cytology once a year. The price is around US$75.

What medical screening method is used in your model, and what is the price and frequency of your screening?

3. Cervical cancer treatment covers surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, which cost about US$20000

I think your data is a bit biased for the above three key costs. I hope that after you have confirmed these costs, you can perform the model calculation again based on the actual situation in your country.

Minor

1. “In 2012 alone, Thailand reported 8,184 new cases of cervical cancer and 4,513 deaths”.

It is best to update to the latest data

2. “Costs and health benefits (QALYs) were discounted by 3%”.

What’s the meaning of “discounted by 3%”?

Reviewer #2: The study used a transmission dynamic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the routine 4vHPV vaccination and the routine 4vHPV vaccination plus catch-up vaccination, compared with no vaccination (screening only) in Thai population,which is very meaningful. There are two issues that need to be explained.

1.In HPV Vaccination Strategies and Characteristics, the author described “Based on the local experience with other vaccines in Thailand, we assumed that for the routine 4vHPV vaccination, 95% of all girls 11-12 years of age received the routine regimen. For the catch-up vaccination, it was assumed that 70% of females between 13-24 years were vaccinated in the first 5 years”, is there any corresponding data to support the assumed percentage of vaccination?

2.In Model Calibration, the author described “the cervical cancer recognition parameters were adjusted to obtain the observed cervical cancer incidence rate to cervical cancer mortality rate ratio (i.e. 21.55/11.22 ≈ 2.30) “, but “the corresponding crude cervical cancer mortality rate was reported as 12.7 per 100,000 of which approximately 73.8%, i.e. 9.37 per 100,000, was assumed to be attributable to HPV 16/18. “, is there a calculation error in this value?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 11;16(2):e0245894. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245894.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Dec 2020

14 DEC 2020

Dear Editor,

RE: Revision of Manuscript ID# PONE-D-20-29823 (1st revision)

We would like to thank you and the reviewers for your review and comments dated 09- November 9, 2563 and for the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “The Epidemiologic and Economic Impact of a Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in Thailand.” (Manuscript ID PONE-D-20-29823). We appreciate the time and efforts by the editor and reviewers in reviewing this manuscript.

Based on the instructions/comments provided, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript on the journal website.

We have revised the manuscript by reformatting the manuscript and modifying the Materials and Methods, Discussion sections, and Supplementary Table 4 based on the comments. Accordingly, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript marked with all the changes made during the revision process (Tracked changes). The new text is underlined while the crossed-out text refers to the deleted original text.

Enclosed to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments. As you notice, we agreed with all the comments raised by the reviewers. We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to the editor and reviewers of our manuscript. We would like also to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.

I hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in PLOS ONE.

Sincerely,

Wichai Termrungruanglert, M.D. (Corresponding author)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,

Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University,

King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital,

Bangkok, Thailand.

Phone: 6681-9333546; E-mail: wichaiterm@yahoo.com

Editor Comments to Author:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Authors’ Response: We reformatted the manuscript according to PLOSE ONE style.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Article processing charge (if any) was provided by MSD (Thailand) Ltd. WT (corresponding author), NK, AV, and PH declare that they have no competing interests. PD was employee of MSD (Thailand) Ltd., during the study initiation and manuscript preparation. ASK and AP are employees of Merck & Co., Inc"

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Authors’ Response: We confirmed that "These do not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials” and added the confirmation sentence after the previous competing interests statement and the cover letter.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Authors’ Response: The captions were added at the end of manuscript.

4. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

Authors’ Response: Amendment done.

5. Please upload a copy of Figure 1 to which you refer in your text on page 14. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

Authors’ Response: The figure is “Supplementary Figure 1”.

*****************************

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer 1

It’s an interesting work relating to the epidemiological consequences and cost-effectiveness of the HPV vaccine. In this study, the cost-effect analysis was used to evaluate the cost and the health benefits of HPV vaccination among all eligible women in Thailand. However, there are some questions that need to be confirmed and revised, which is associated with the conclusions of the study.

The key points of this study might be the cost of the HPV vaccine and the cost of cervical cancer screening. However, the price of the vaccine is cheaper than in other countries, and the baseline of the screening is longer than the guidelines.

Major

1. “We assumed a cost of 500.00 THB 1 per vaccine dose (≈US$15) for each vaccine that was administered”. Is the price of 4vHPV vaccination so cheap? Generally speaking, the price of 4vHPV vaccination per vaccine dose is US$125. I think this price needs to be confirmed.

Authors’ Response:

Cost of the vaccine used in this study was the cost that the Ministry of Public Health Thailand proposed to pay in 2012 in order to incorporate the HPV vaccine into the national program [1, 2]. Although the cost used in the model was lower than the HPV vaccine prices at Public hospitals, however, the cost in the study still has been higher than the willingness to pay by the parents if it was not offered for free. A survey of willingness to copay showed that the parent would copay less than 500 THB for three doses of HPV vaccine and no significant difference between bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines for willingness to pay was identified [3]. We additionally described the cost of vaccine that we used in Method (Economic Data) and Discussion. The references are also provided in both manuscript and Supplementary Table 4.

At the time of the launch, the first HPV vaccines were by far the most expensive of all available vaccines in the market, having a cost of USD 120.11 (EUR 100) per dose in most European countries. However, the prices of vaccines were declined with the passage of time probably due to maturation in price[4]. For example, the dose price of HPV vaccine funded by Pan American Health Organization Revolving Fund (PAHO-RF) declined from USD 32.00 in 2010 to USD 13.50 in 2013 and then to USD 8.50 in 2015 [4]. The reasons for the drop in vaccine prices can be many reasons, e.g. competitive tendering of prices in the case of HPV vaccines[4] [5], the involvement of organizations such as the Global Alliance for Vaccine Initiative (GAVI), the World Health Organization, the UNICEF, the World Bank and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the PAHO-RF. For example, in 2000, the GAVI was established to help children worldwide, to improve the access to vaccines and support the vaccinations in 40 countries for 30 million girls by 2020 and has improved the affordability of vaccines, particularly for low-income countries[4] [5]. GAVI-funded vaccines promoted more suppliers into the market and more competition, thus helping to lower the price of some vaccines[5].

It was observed that the affordable prices of vaccines can be achieved through tender procedures[4] [5]. This is because vaccine pricing is affected by contract volume and its duration, country, per capita GDP and the number of offers received [5]. This could also be explained by economic theory which suggests that with higher purchasing power on the demand side, the price tendering may achieve significant savings. Therefore, the cost of 500 THB/dose is a possible cost.

2. The recommended screening for cervical cancer is HPV plus TCT liquid-based cytology once a year. The price is around US$75.

What medical screening method is used in your model, and what is the price and frequency of your screening?

Authors’ Response: The cervical screening method in the model is annual screening. The method includes cytology plus HPV test. The cost (1876 THB � 55 USD) is the estimated cost of the cervical cytology screening method using the cost published by Sharma M, et al 2012 [6]. The reference has been cited in Supplementary Table 4.

3. Cervical cancer treatment covers surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, which cost about US$20000. I think your data is a bit biased for the above three key costs. I hope that after you have confirmed these costs, you can perform the model calculation again based on the actual situation in your country.

Authors’ Response: We confirmed that the cost used in the model is the actual cost in Thailand. (Data from King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand).

Minor

1. “In 2012 alone, Thailand reported 8,184 new cases of cervical cancer and 4,513 deaths”. It is best to update to the latest data

Authors’ Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We updated the data using the information in 2018. “In 2018 alone, Thailand reported 8,622 new cases of cervical cancer and 5,015 deaths”[7].

2. “Costs and health benefits (QALYs) were discounted by 3%”. What’s the meaning of “discounted by 3%”?

Authors’ Response: The costs and benefits often considered in a health economic evaluation or health technology assessment (HTA) are not only incurred in the current year, but materialize beyond the present[8]. For the valuation of costs and benefits in the context of an economic evaluation, their timing is relevant because people generally value future costs and effects less than current costs and effects and their value diminishes the more distant in the future they occur. Hence, economic evaluations need to adjust the value of costs and benefits for the time at which they occur, a technique known as discounting[8]. It is a common practice in health economic evaluations to perform discounting on both future costs and benefits[9]. A review of relevant case studies and guidelines and provide guidance for all researchers conducting economic evaluations of health technologies in the Thai context. A uniform discount rate of 3% is recommended for both costs and health effects in base case analyses [9].

******************************

Reviewer #2:

The study used a transmission dynamic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the routine 4vHPV vaccination and the routine 4vHPV vaccination plus catch-up vaccination, compared with no vaccination (screening only) in Thai population, which is very meaningful. There are two issues that need to be explained.

1. In HPV Vaccination Strategies and Characteristics, the author described “Based on the local experience with other vaccines in Thailand, we assumed that for the routine 4vHPV vaccination, 95% of all girls 11-12 years of age received the routine regimen. For the catch-up vaccination, it was assumed that 70% of females between 13-24 years were vaccinated in the first 5 years”, is there any corresponding data to support the assumed percentage of vaccination?

Authors’ Response:

Thailand’s success in providing care and coverage for all produces strong immunization outputs with nearly 100% coverage for all vaccines in the schedule[10]. In 1997, the Thai government introduced the National Immunization Program (NIP) with just BCG and DTP. This commitment to immunization and a subsequent push for the provision of vaccine services saw a big increase in coverage.

By 1985, MCV and OPV were added and coverage rates jumped. By 1995, these four vaccines had at least 90% coverage across the country. In 2013, they all reached 99% (see Figure in the respond to Reviewers letter). The immunization schedule is slightly longer with rubella and HepB included, but all vaccines, with the exception of the second measles dose, has 99% coverage. The second dose was added to the schedule later and is for schoolchildren, administered after other vaccines [10].

We therefore assumed that 95% of all girls 11-12 years of age received the routine regimen which was slightly lower that the success rate for the routine vaccination of Thailand. We additionally cited the reference in the manuscript.

2. In Model Calibration, the author described “the cervical cancer recognition parameters were adjusted to obtain the observed cervical cancer incidence rate to cervical cancer mortality rate ratio (i.e. 21.55/11.22 ≈ 2.30) “, but “the corresponding crude cervical cancer mortality rate was reported as 12.7 per 100,000 of which approximately 73.8%, i.e. 9.37 per 100,000, was assumed to be attributable to HPV 16/18. “, is there a calculation error in this value?

Authors’ Response:

A typographical error is corrected (From “21.55/11.22≈ 2.30” to “21.55/9.37 ≈ 2.30”. Thank you very much.

References

1. Ngorsuraches S, Nawanukool K, Petcharamanee K, Poopantrakool U. Parents' preferences and willingness-to-pay for human papilloma virus vaccines in Thailand. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2015;8(1):20-. doi: 10.1186/s40545-015-0040-8. PubMed PMID: 26199734.

2. Sajirawattanakul D, Krittin P. Govt urged to drop HPV vaccine plan. (Apr 09. 2012). The Nation Thailand. 2012.

3. Kruiroongroj S, Chaikledkaew U, Thavorncharoensap M. Knowledge, acceptance, and willingness to pay for human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination among female parents in Thailand. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP. 2014;15(13):5469-74. Epub 2014/07/22. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.13.5469. PubMed PMID: 25041020.

4. Hussain R, Bukhari NI, ur Rehman A, Hassali MA, Babar Z-U-D. Vaccine Prices: A Systematic Review of Literature. Vaccines. 2020;8(4):629. PubMed PMID: doi:10.3390/vaccines8040629.

5. Jacobson S. Vaccine pricing: how can we get it right? Expert Rev Vaccines. 2012;11:1163-5. doi: 10.1586/erv.12.95.

6. Sharma M, Ortendahl J, van der Ham E, Sy S, Kim JJ. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening in Thailand. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 2012;119(2):166-76. Epub 2011/04/13. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02974.x. PubMed PMID: 21481160.

7. Bruni L, Albero G, Serrano B, Mena M, Gómez D, Muñoz J, et al. ICO/IARC Information Centre on HPV and Cancer (HPV Information Centre). Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases in Thailand. Summary Report 17 June 2019. [Date Accessed 13 DEC 2020] (URL:https://www.hpvcentre.net/statistics/reports/THA.pdf). 2019.

8. Attema AE, Brouwer WBF, Claxton K. Discounting in Economic Evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(7):745-58. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0672-z. PubMed PMID: 29779120.

9. Permsuwan U, Guntawongwan K, Buddhawongsa P. Handling time in economic evaluation studies. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet. 2014;97 Suppl 5:S50-8. Epub 2014/06/27. PubMed PMID: 24964699.

10. Coe M, Gergen J. “Thailand Country Brief ( August 2017)”. Sustainable Immunization Financing in Asia Pacific. (URL: https://thinkwell.global/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Thailand-Country-Brief-081618.pdf) Access Date 14 DEC 2020. Washington, DC: ThinkWell.: ThinkWell.; 2017.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Luca Giannella

11 Jan 2021

The Epidemiologic and Economic Impact of a Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in Thailand.

PONE-D-20-29823R1

Dear Dr. Termrungruanglert,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Luca Giannella

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting research, using a cost-effect model to measure the epidemiologic and economic impact of HPV vaccination free in Thailand. I believe your country will benefit from this.

After reading the author's response and the latest manuscript, I think this paper is acceptable. But there is a small problem that needs attention.

1. If the format of Table 2 can be changed to that of Table 3 and Table 4, it may be more coordinated.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Luca Giannella

25 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-29823R1

The epidemiologic and economic impact of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in Thailand.

Dear Dr. Termrungruanglert:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Luca Giannella

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Estimated number of HPV-related disease events over 100 years in the routine 4vHPV vaccination, routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination, compared to no vaccination (cervical cancer screening only) in a Thai population of 100,000 (base case analysis).

    A, Estimated HPV 16/18 Related Incidence of Cervical Cancer Among Females over 100 Years; B, Estimated HPV 16/18 Related Cervical Cancer Deaths Among Females over 100 years; C, Estimated HPV 16/18 Related incidence of CIN1 Among Females over 100 years; D, Estimated HPV 16/18 Related Incidence of CIN 2/3 Among Females over 100 years; E, Estimated HPV 6/11 Related Incidence of CIN1 Among Females over 100 years; F, Estimated HPV 6/11 Related Incidence of Genital Warts Among Females over 100 years.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Estimated HPV-related treatment costs avoided over 100 years by HPV genotypes in Thailand when compared to no vaccination (screening only).

    A, For routine 4vHPV vaccination; and B, For routine plus catch-up 4vHPV vaccination.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. All-cause mortality and cervical cancer mortality.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Sexual behavior parameters.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Quality-of-life parameters.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Costs of diagnosing and treating HPV disease in Thailand (THB).

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES