Health economic analysis of human papillomavirus vaccines in women of Chile: perspective of the health care payer using a Markov model

Table 4 Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis (discounted data)

a. Cost-utility
	Total^a		Incremental		ICUR^b	Incremental		ICUR^b
	Total^a		(vs. previous alternative)		(vs. previous alternative)	(vs. no vaccination)		(vs. no vaccination)
	QALYs	Costs	QALYs	Costs	(vs. previous alternative)	QALYs	Costs	(vs. no vaccination)
Current screening practice	2126963	14272773	-		-	-	-	-
HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine + current screening	2127782	14715753	819	442981	Dominated	819	442981	541
HPV-16/18 + current screening	2127811	14371468	29	-344286	116	848	98695	116
b. Cost-effectiveness
	Total ^a		Incremental		ICER ^b	Incremental		ICER ^b
	Total ^a		(vs. previous alternative)		(vs. previous alternative)	(vs. no vaccination)		(vs. no vaccination)
	LYS	Costs	LYS	Costs	(vs. previous alternative)	QALYs	Costs	(vs. no vaccination)
Current screening practice	2127239	14272773	-		-	-	-	-
HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine + current screening	2127849	14715753	610	442981	Dominated	610	442981	726
HPV-16/18 + current screening	2127909	14371468	60	- 344286	147	670	98695	147

^aStrategies are listed in order of increasing health gains (QALYs). ^bICUR & ICER calculations for both vaccines are obtained by comparing to previous alternative and to the reference (no vaccination) scenario. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 6.0% based on the recommendations of the Planning Ministry of Chile [42].
Note: HPV: human papillomavirus; ICUR: incremental cost-utility ratio; ICER: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; LYS: Life-years saved; QALY: quality-adjusted life years.

ISSN: 1471-2458