Choosing the optimalHPVvaccine: The health impact and economic value of the nonavalent and bivalentHPVvaccines in 48 Gavi-eligible countries

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines may provide some level of cross-protection against high-risk HPV genotypes not directly targeted by the vaccines. We evaluated the long-term health and economic impacts of routine HPV vaccination using either the nonavalent HPV vaccine or the bivalent HPV vaccine in the context of 48 Gavi-eligible countries. We used a multi-modeling approach to compare the bivalent with or without cross-protection and the nonavalent HPV vaccine. The optimal, that is, most cost-effective, vaccine was the vaccine with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) for each country. By 2100 and assuming 70% HPV vaccination coverage, a bivalent vaccine without cross-protection, a bivalent vaccine with favorable cross-protection and the nonavalent vaccine were projected to avert 14.9, 17.2 and 18.5 million cumulative cases of cervical cancer across all 48 Gavi-eligible countries, respectively. The relative value of the bivalent vaccine compared to the nonavalent vaccine increased assuming a bivalent vaccine conferred high cross-protection. For example, assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of per-capita GDP, the nonavalent vaccine was optimal in 83% (n = 40) of countries if the bivalent vaccine did not confer cross-protection; however, the proportion of countries decreased to 63% (n = 30) if the bivalent vaccine conferred high cross-protection. For lower cost-effectiveness thresholds, the bivalent vaccine was optimal in a greater proportion of countries, under both cross-protection assumptions. Although the nonavalent vaccine is projected to avert more cases of cervical cancer, the bivalent vaccine with favorable cross-protection can prevent a considerable number of cases and would be considered a high-value vaccine for many Gavi-eligible countries.