Projections of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination impact in Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and Pakistan: a comparative modelling study.
Portnoy, Allison;
Abbas, Kaja;
Sweet, Steven;
Kim, Jane J;
Jit, Mark;
(2021)
Projections of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination impact in Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and Pakistan: a comparative modelling study.
BMJ Global Health, 6 (11).
e006940-e006940.
ISSN 2059-7908
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006940
Permanent Identifier
Use this Digital Object Identifier when citing or linking to this resource.
INTRODUCTION: Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women in Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and Pakistan. Our study objective was to assess similarities and differences in vaccine-impact projections through comparative modelling analysis by independently estimating the potential health impact of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. METHODS: Using two widely published models (Harvard and Papillomavirus Rapid Interface for Modelling and Economics (PRIME)) to estimate HPV vaccination impact, we simulated a vaccination scenario of 90% annual coverage among 10 cohorts of 9-year-old girls from 2021 to 2030 in Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and Pakistan. We estimated potential health impact in terms of cervical cancer cases, deaths and disability-adjusted life years averted among vaccinated cohorts from the time of vaccination until 2100. We harmonised the two models by standardising input data to comparatively estimate HPV vaccination impact. RESULTS: Prior to harmonising model assumptions, the range between PRIME and Harvard models for number of cervical cancer cases averted by HPV vaccination was: 262 000 to 2 70 000 in Ethiopia; 1 640 000 to 1 970 000 in India; 330 000 to 3 36 000 in Nigeria and 111 000 to 1 33 000 in Pakistan. When harmonising model assumptions, alignment on HPV type distribution significantly narrowed differences in vaccine-impact estimates. CONCLUSION: Despite model differences, the Harvard and PRIME models yielded similar vaccine-impact estimates. The main differences in estimates are due to variation in interpretation around data on cervical cancer attribution to HPV-16/18. As countries make progress towards WHO targets for cervical cancer elimination, continued explorations of underlying differences in model inputs, assumptions and results when examining cervical cancer prevention policy will be critical.