METHODS: A Markov cohort model reflecting the natural history of HPV infection accounting for oncogenic and low-risk HPV was adapted for 13 year old Malaysian girls cohort (n = 274,050). Transition probabilities, utilities values, epidemiological and cost data were sourced from published literature and local data. Vaccine effectiveness was based on overall efficacy reported from 3-doses clinical trials, with the assumption that the 2-doses is non-inferior to the 3-doses allowing overall efficacy to be inferred from the 3-doses immunogenicity data. Price parity and life-long protection were assumed. The payer perspective was adopted, with appropriate discounting for costs (3 %) and outcomes (3 %). One way sensitivity analysis was conducted. The sensitivity analysis on cost of vaccine, vaccine coverage and discount rate with a 2-doses protocol was performed.
RESULT: The 3-doses and 2-doses regimes showed same number of Cervical Cancers averted (361 cases); QALYs saved at 7,732,266. However, the lifetime protection under the 2-doses regime, showed a significant cost-savings of RM 36, 722,700 compared to the 3-doses scheme. The MOH Malaysia could vaccinate 137,025 more girls in this country using saving 2-doses regime vaccination programme. The model predicted that 2-doses HPV vaccination schemes can avoid additional 180 Cervical Cancers and 63 deaths compare to 3-doses.
CONCLUSION: A 2-doses HPV vaccination scheme may enable Malaysian women to be protected at a lower cost than that achievable under a 3-doses scheme, while avoiding the same number of Cervical Cancer cases and deaths. Using the saving money with 2-doses, more Cervical Cancers and deaths can be avoided.
DESIGN: In-depth interviews of adolescent health care providers, 2013-2014.
SETTING: Five countries where HPV vaccination is at various stages of implementation into national programs: Argentina, Malaysia, South Africa, South Korea, and Spain.
PARTICIPANTS: Adolescent health care providers (N = 151) who had administered or overseen provision of adolescent vaccinations (N = Argentina: 30, Malaysia: 30, South Africa: 31, South Korea: 30, Spain: 30).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of HPV vaccination recommendation, reasons providers do not always recommend the vaccine and facilitators to doing so, comfort level with recommending the vaccine, reasons for any discomfort, and positive and negative aspects of HPV vaccination.
RESULTS: Over half of providers 82/151 (54%) recommend HPV vaccination always or most of the time (range: 20% in Malaysia to 90% in Argentina). Most providers 112/151 (74%) said they were comfortable recommending HPV vaccination, although South Korea was an outlier 10/30 (33%). Providers cited protection against cervical cancer 124/151 (83%) and genital warts 56/151 (37%) as benefits of HPV vaccination. When asked about the problems with HPV vaccination, providers mentioned high cost 75/151 (50% overall; range: 26% in South Africa to 77% in South Korea) and vaccination safety 28/151 (19%; range: 7% in South Africa to 33% in Spain). Free, low-cost, or publicly available vaccination 59/151 (39%), and additional data on vaccination safety 52/151 (34%) and efficacy 43/151 (28%) were the most commonly cited facilitators of health provider vaccination recommendation.
CONCLUSION: Interventions to increase HPV vaccination should consider a country's specific provider concerns, such as reducing cost and providing information on vaccination safety and efficacy.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using self-administered questionnaires, recruiting 374 UTAR's students as the respondents by using convenience sampling method. Respondents were categorized as having good/poor level of knowledge and positive/negative attitude towards HPV vaccination.
RESULTS: Over half of the respondents were females (64.5%) and the majority were aged 20 years old and below (55.8%). Generally, 54.7% of the total respondents had a high level of knowledge towards HPV vaccine while 57.5% of the total respondents showed a negative attitude towards HPV vaccine. Female respondents aged 20 years old and below showed good knowledge (56.4%) and a more positive attitude (55.8%) towards HPV vaccine. Students from the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences (FMHS) exhibited higher knowledge (67.3%) and positive attitude (62.4%) as compared to the Faculty of Accountancy and Management (FAM) which showed only 32.7% of knowledge and 37.6% of positive attitude towards the HPV vaccination.
CONCLUSION: The majority of UTAR students possess good knowledge regarding HPV vaccination. Nonetheless, they demonstrated a negative attitude towards HPV vaccination, depicting the necessity to impart and further intensify the sense of health awareness among all students, especially among male students. The judicious use of social media apart from the conventional mass media should be an advantage as to enhance the practice of HPV vaccination among them and thereafter minimize the health and economic burdens of cervical cancer.
METHODS: In this economic evaluation study, 22 primary healthcare centers were randomly selected in Malaysia between December 2019 and July 2020. The baseline immunization schedule includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses), whereas the alternative scheme includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (one dose) administered at birth. Direct medical costs were extracted using a costing questionnaire and an observational time and motion chart. Direct non-medical (cost for transportation) and indirect costs (loss of productivity) were derived from parents'/caregivers' questionnaire. Also, HCPs' and parent's/caregivers' perceptions were investigated using structured questionnaires.
RESULTS: The cost per dose of Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B vs. Hexaxim® for the baseline scheme was Malaysian ringgit (RM) 31.90 (7.7 United States dollar [USD]) vs. 17.10 (4.1 USD) for direct medical cost, RM 54.40 (13.1 USD) vs. RM 27.20 (6.6 USD) for direct non-medical cost, RM 221.33 (53.3 USD) vs. RM 110.66 (26.7 USD) for indirect cost, and RM 307.63 (74.2 USD) vs. RM 155.00 (37.4 USD) for societal (total) cost. A similar trend was observed for the alternative scheme. Compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B, total cost savings per dose of Hexaxim® were RM 137.20 (33.1 USD) and RM 104.70 (25.2 USD) in the baseline and alternative scheme, respectively. Eighty-four percent of physicians and 95% of nurses supported the use of Hexaxim® in the NIP. The majority of parents/caregivers had a positive perception regarding Hexaxim® vaccine in various aspects.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of Hexaxim® within Malaysian NIP is highly recommended because the use of Hexaxim® has demonstrated substantial direct and indirect cost savings for healthcare providers and parents/caregivers with a high percentage of positive perceptions, compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.