Potential benefit of extended dose schedules of human papillomavirus vaccination in the context of scarce resources and COVID-19 disruptions in low-income and middle-income countries: a mathematical modelling analysis
Élodie Bénard,Mélanie Drolet,Jean-François Laprise,Mark Jit,Kiesha Prem,Marie-Claude Boily,Marc Brisson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00475-2
Abstract:Background: The WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts recommended that an extended interval of 3-5 years between the two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine could be considered to alleviate vaccine supply shortages. However, three concerns have limited the introduction of extended schedules: girls could be infected between the two doses, the vaccination coverage for the second dose could be lower at ages 13-14 years than at ages 9-10 years, and identifying girls vaccinated with a first dose to give them the second dose could be difficult. Using mathematical modelling, we examined the potential effect of these concerns on the population-level impact and efficiency of extended dose HPV vaccination schedules. Methods: We used HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based, transmission-dynamic model of multitype HPV infection and disease, calibrated to country-specific data for four low-income and middle-income countries (India, Viet Nam, Uganda, and Nigeria). For the extended dose scenarios, we varied the vaccination coverage of the second dose among girls previously vaccinated, the one-dose vaccine efficacy, and the one-dose vaccine duration of protection. We also examined a strategy in which girls aged 14 years were vaccinated irrespective of their previous vaccination status. We used a scenario of girls-only two-dose vaccination at age 9 years (vaccine=9 valent, vaccine-type efficacy=100%, duration of protection=lifetime, and coverage=80%) as our comparator. We estimated two outcomes: the relative reduction in the age-standardised cervical cancer incidence (population-level impact) and the number of cervical cancers averted per 100 000 doses (efficiency). Findings: Our model projected substantial reductions in cervical cancer incidence over 100 years with the two-dose schedule (79-86% depending on the country), compared with no vaccination. Projections for the 5-year extended schedule, in which the second dose is given only to girls previously vaccinated at age 9 years, were similar to the current two-dose schedule, unless vaccination coverage of the second dose is very low (reductions in cervical cancer incidence of 71-78% assuming 30% coverage at age 14 years among girls vaccinated at age 9 years). However, when the dose at age 14 years is given to girls irrespective of vaccination status and assuming high vaccination coverage, the model projected a substantially greater reduction in cervical cancer incidence compared with the current two-dose schedule (reductions in cervical cancer incidence of 86-93% assuming 70% coverage at age 14 years, irrespective of vaccination status). Efficiency of the extended schedule was greater than the two-dose schedule, even with a drop in vaccination coverage. Interpretation: The three concerns are unlikely to have a substantial effect on the population-level impact of extended dose schedules. Hence, extended dose schedules will likely provide similar cervical cancer reductions as two-dose schedules, while reducing the number of doses required in the short-term, providing a more efficient use of scarce resources, and offering a 5-year time window to reassess the necessity of the second dose. Funding: WHO, Canadian Institute of Health Research Foundation, Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Digital Research Alliance of Canada, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.