BackgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are widely available and there have been studies exploring their potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness. However, few studies have compared the cost-effectiveness among the 2 main vaccines available - a bivalent vaccine against HPV 16/18, and a quadrivalent vaccine against 6/11/16/18. We explore the cost-effectiveness of these two HPV vaccines in tropical Singapore.MethodsWe developed a Markov state-transition model to represent the natural history of cervical cancer to predict HPV infection, cancer incidence, mortality, and costs. Cytologic screening and treatment of different outcomes of HPV infection were incorporated. Vaccination was provided to a cohort of 12-year old females in Singapore, followed up until death. Based on available vaccines on the market, the bivalent vaccine had increased effectiveness against a wider range of HPV types, while the quadrivalent vaccine had effectiveness against genital warts. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) compared vaccination to no-vaccination, and between the two vaccines. Sensitivity analyses explored differences in vaccine effectiveness and uptake, and other key input parameters.ResultsFor the no vaccination scenario, 229 cervical cancer cases occurred over the cohort's lifetime. The total discounted cost per individual due to HPV infection was SGD$275 with 28.54 discounted life-years. With 100% vaccine coverage, the quadrivalent vaccine reduced cancers by 176, and had an ICER of SGD$12,866 per life-year saved. For the bivalent vaccine, 197 cancers were prevented with an ICER of $12,827 per life-year saved. Comparing the bivalent to the quadrivalent vaccine, the ICER was $12,488 per life-year saved. However, the cost per QALY saved for the quadrivalent vaccine compared to no vaccine was $9,071, while it was $10,392 for the bivalent vaccine, with the quadrivalent vaccine dominating the bivalent vaccine due to the additional QALY effect from reduction in genital warts. The overall outcomes were most sensitive to vaccine cost and coverage.ConclusionHPV vaccination is a cost-effective strategy, and should be considered a possible strategy to reduce the impact of HPV infection.

BackgroundAll influenza pandemic plans advocate pandemic vaccination. However, few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different vaccination strategies. This paper compares the economic outcomes of vaccination compared with treatment with antiviral agents alone, in Singapore.MethodologyWe analyzed the economic outcomes of pandemic vaccination (immediate vaccination and vaccine stockpiling) compared with treatment-only in Singapore using a decision-based model to perform cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. We also explored the annual insurance premium (willingness to pay) depending on the perceived risk of the next pandemic occurring.Principal FindingsThe treatment-only strategy resulted in 690 deaths, 13,950 hospitalization days, and economic cost of USD$497 million. For immediate vaccination, at vaccine effectiveness of >55%, vaccination was cost-beneficial over treatment-only. Vaccine stockpiling is not cost-effective in most scenarios even with 100% vaccine effectiveness. The annual insurance premium was highest with immediate vaccination, and was lower with increased duration to the next pandemic. The premium was also higher with higher vaccine effectiveness, attack rates, and case-fatality rates. Stockpiling with case-fatality rates of 0.4–0.6% would be cost-beneficial if vaccine effectiveness was >80%; while at case-fatality of >5% stockpiling would be cost-beneficial even if vaccine effectiveness was 20%. High-risk sub-groups warrant higher premiums than low-risk sub-groups.ConclusionsThe actual pandemic vaccine effectiveness and lead time is unknown. Vaccine strategy should be based on perception of severity. Immediate vaccination is most cost-effective, but requires vaccines to be available when required. Vaccine stockpiling as insurance against worst-case scenarios is also cost-effective. Research and development is therefore critical to develop and stockpile cheap, readily available effective vaccines.

Introduction: With advances in interventional catheterisation, transcatheter device closure of atrial septal defect (ASD) is now a feasible option to open heart surgery, especially in patients with isolated ASD. We aim to compare the outcomes, benefits and costs between device closure versus standard open-heart surgery for ASD in Singapore. Materials and Methods: This is a comparative study between 2 cohorts with isolated secundum ASDs who underwent closure of ASD either by surgery or device, at the Department of Paediatrics, National University Hospital (NUH). The clinical outcomes, complications, length of stay and total costs incurred were compared. Results: Surgical patients were at slightly greater risk of developing complications (RR=1.33; 95% CI, 0.30 to 5.95) than the device group. The median length of inpatient stay for the surgical group was significantly longer than that for the device group. Seventy percent of the patients in the device group did not need to be in ICU while 40% of patients in the surgery group stayed 2 or at least 3 days in ICU (P <0.001). The mean cost per successful procedure was $1511 (95% CI, -352 to 3375) higher for the device group patients despite a shorter length of stay in hospital. Conclusions: We concluded that transcatheter device closure is an effective and safe alternative to surgery in the treatment of suitable ASDs. Despite the high cost of the device, direct and indirect benefits for the patients and their families, who undergo device occlusion include less morbidity, better cosmesis, shorter length of stay in hospital, faster recovery and shorter time taken to resume normal activities. Key words: Amplatzer, ASD, Cost, Device occlusion, Interventional cardiology