|LETTER TO THE EDITOR
|Year : 2019 | Volume
| Issue : 6 | Page : 1421
Cost–risk analysis of available cervix cancer vaccine: Situation analysis from Thailand
Somsri Wiwanitkit1, Viroj Wiwanitkit2
1 Wiwanitkit House, Bangkhae, Bangkok, Thailand
2 Department of Biological Science, Joseph Ayo Babalola University, Ilesa, Osun, Nigeria
|Date of Submission||24-Jun-2018|
|Date of Decision||16-Feb-2019|
|Date of Acceptance||11-May-2019|
|Date of Web Publication||24-Dec-2019|
Dr. Somsri Wiwanitkit
Joseph Ayo Babalola University, Ilesa, Osun
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Wiwanitkit S, Wiwanitkit V. Cost–risk analysis of available cervix cancer vaccine: Situation analysis from Thailand. J Can Res Ther 2019;15:1421
Cervix cancer is an important female cancer that causes several deaths each year. Luckily, the new vaccine against cervix cancer is already developed and in use. In Thailand, the cervix cancer is also highly prevalent and becomes the leading cause of death among local female, and annual screening is the basic public health policies in Thailand. The introduction of the cervical cancer vaccine in Thailand becomes a new hope for control of the disease. At present, the vaccine is still expensive and its cost becomes a big consideration. Several new reports confirm for the cost-effectiveness of the vaccination of the available vaccines.,,, The vaccine is proven cost-effective regardless commercial types of vaccine. Nevertheless, the additional concern is on the adverse effect of the vaccine. There are only few reports on this issue and extremely few reports regarding the cost and risk of the vaccines. Here, the authors perform the cost and risk analysis of the available cervix cancer vaccines in Thailand – Gardasil and Cervarix. The cost identification is performed. The unit cost at the tertiary hospital in Thailand in USD is used for further analysis. Focusing on the risk, the data from a recent report on the reactogenicity of the vaccines are used for further analysis. The cost–risk analysis is performed, and the result is shown in [Table 1]. Conceptually, the good vaccine should have lower cost and lower risk. For cost–risk analysis, it can be seen that Cervarix is slightly cheaper but have significantly more risk. The cost–risk analysis hereby shows that the Gardasil is more favorable.
|Table 1: Cost-risk analysis of available cervix cancer vaccines in Thailand|
Click here to view
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| > References|| |
Torre LA, Islami F, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global cancer in women: Burden and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26:444-57.
Harper DM, DeMars LR. HPV vaccines – A review of the first decade. Gynecol Oncol 2017;146:196-204.
Wiwanitkit V. Screening for cervical cancer, results from Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2006;7:329-30.
Einstein MH, Baron M, Levin MJ, Chatterjee A, Edwards RP, Zepp F, et al.
Comparison of the immunogenicity and safety of cervarix and gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer vaccines in healthy women aged 18-45 years. Hum Vaccin 2009;5:705-19.
Draper E, Bissett SL, Howell-Jones R, Waight P, Soldan K, Jit M, et al.
A randomized, observer-blinded immunogenicity trial of cervarix(®) and gardasil(®) human papillomavirus vaccines in 12-15 year old girls. PLoS One 2013;8:e61825.
Song X, Mao F, Zhou Z, Zhao Q, Fang Y. Health economic evaluation of human papillomavirus vaccines in the developing countries: Systematic reviews. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2016;50:85-90.
Pimple S, Mishra G, Shastri S. Global strategies for cervical cancer prevention. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2016;28:4-10.
Handler NS, Handler MZ, Majewski S, Schwartz RA. Human papillomavirus vaccine trials and tribulations: Vaccine efficacy. J Am Acad Dermatol 2015;73:759-67.
Haskins-Coulter T, Southern J, Andrews N, Miller E. Reactogenicity of cervarix and gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines in a randomized single blind trial in healthy UK adolescent females. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2017;13:1-9.