This site is intended for health professionals only
Wednesday 23 May 2012
Facebook Twiter Linkedin

Quadrivalent HPV vaccine 'more cost-effective'

By Ellie Broughton | 28 Sep 2011

The quadrivalent cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil, is more cost-effective than its bivalent equivalent if the two vaccines were equally priced, concludes a study published today.

Using a mathematical model of the latest evidence, Dr Mark Jit and colleagues at the Health Protection Agency found the HPV vaccine used for the UK Government programme, Ceravix, would have to be £19 to £35 cheaper per dose to be as cost-effective as Gardasil, mainly due to a lack of protection against genital warts.

According to the latest edition of the British National Forumlary, the net price of one dose of Cervarix is £80.50, and a dose of Gardasil costs £86.50.

The researchers found the price differential between the two vaccines was larger than their 2008 analysis. Cervarix gives protection from HPV types other than 16 and 18. Gardasil has also shown protection against vulvar, vaginal and anal cancer.

A Health Protection Agency spokesperson said: 'The study used mathematical modelling to assess the value for money of the two vaccines.'

'New data were used in this analysis to more accurately explore the potential impact of HPV vaccination, for example, about cross-protection against more HPV types than are included in the vaccines, about prevention of cancers other than cervical cancer, and about the impact of genital warts on health.'

The authors of the study in the British Medical Journal stress that although cost-effectiveness has been evaluated, considerable uncertainty remains about the differential benefit of the two vaccines.

READERS' COMMENTS

Vinci Ho, GP Partner,
28 Sep 2011
If I remember correctly , there were some suggestions that the protection against HPV 16 and 18 is perhaps more potent with Cervarix as it was manufactured and carried in a medium used in hepatitis B vaccine as well . Question is whether this is a strong enough argument? Clearly a difference of only six quid while Gerdasil is covering serotype 6 and 11 and perhaps a better cross over protection of other serotypes , although many are not carcinogenic .
Average (0Votes)
Top

ADD YOUR COMMENTS

Please note You must be a registered user of PulseToday and logged in to add comments. Opinions expressed below are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of PulseToday. Comments are considered in the public domain and may be used in future Pulse coverage. We accept no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy or the content of member comments.

Comment*

You must be logged in to add a comment.Clickhere to login.

SIGN UP FOR EMAIL NEWSLETTERS

Keep up-to-date with the latest changes to the NHS, CPD and clinical guidelines. Sign up below or find out more.

POLL

Is self-care the answer to the NHS efficiency drive? Read the full story here