Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 The cost-effectiveness of catch-up vaccination by upper age limit

From: The economic evaluation of human papillomavirus vaccination strategies against cervical cancer in women in Lao PDR: a mathematical modelling approach

Number Options Total cost per 1000 women DALY averted per 1000 women Cost-effective ratio (DALY averted) ICER (DALY averted)
1. No vaccination with current screening 4497 - - -
2. Catch-up 11–18 24,680 34.1 591.9 592
3. Catch-up 11–20 25,548 34.4 611.9 2373
4. Catch-up 11–22 26,446 34.7 632.5 3476
5. Catch-up 11–25 27,807 35.1 664.1 3420
6. Catch-up 11–30 29,983 35.7 713.9 3880
7. Catch-up 11–35 31,919 36.2 757.5 3882
8. Catch-up 11–40 33,584 36.5 796.9 4662
9. Catch-up 11–45 34,991 36.7 830.9 7012
10. Catch-up 11–50 36,159 36.9 858.0 8408
11. Catch-up 11–55 37,109 36.9 883.8 D
12. Catch-up 11–60 37,857 37 901.6 15,750
13. Catch-up 11–65 38,418 37 916.8 D
14. Catch-up 11–70 38,812 37 927.4 D
15. Catch-up 11–75 39,059 37 934.1 D
  1. Note: The cost-effectiveness ratio was a comparison of an option and the baseline scenarios (no vaccination with current screening). The incremental cost of the effectiveness ratio expressed as DALY averted is listed in order of increasing cost. In non-dominant strategies, the ICER was calculated by dividing different costs by different effectiveness. The intervention was compared to the next more effective and more costly option. The D refers to strong dominance, which is expressed as a higher cost and a lower effectiveness compared to the alternative options. The currency is 2013 international dollars, using purchasing power parity
  2. The GDP per capita in 2013 was about 4822 international dollars [30]