Search

Background Human papillomavirus (HVP)–positive oropharyngeal cancer is the most common HPV-associated cancer in the United States. The age at acquisition of oral HPV infections that cause oropharyngeal cancer (causal infections) is unknown; consequently, the benefit of vaccination of US men aged 27-45 years remains uncertain. Methods We developed a microsimulation-based, individual-level, state-transition model of oral HPV16 and HPV16-positive oropharyngeal cancer among heterosexual US men aged 15-84 years, calibrated to population-level data. We estimated the benefit of vaccination of men aged 27-45 years for prevention of oropharyngeal cancer, accounting for direct- and indirect effects (ie, herd effects) of male and female vaccination. Results In the absence of vaccination, most (70%) causal oral HPV16 infections are acquired by age 26 years, and 29% are acquired between ages 27 and 45 years. Among men aged 15-45 years in 2021 (1976-2006 birth cohorts), status quo vaccination of men through age 26 years is estimated to prevent 95% of 153 450 vaccine-preventable cancers. Assuming 100% vaccination in 2021, extending the upper age limit to 30, 35, 40, or 45 years for men aged 27-45 years (1976-1994 cohorts) is estimated to yield small benefits (3.0%, 4.2%, 5.1%, and 5.6% additional cancers prevented, respectively). Importantly, status quo vaccination of men through age 26 years is predicted to result in notable declines in HPV16-positive oropharyngeal cancer incidence in young men by 2035 (51% and 24% declines at ages 40-44 years and 45-49 years, respectively) and noticeable declines (12%) overall by 2045. Conclusion Most causal oral HPV16 infections in US men are acquired by age 26 years, underscoring limited benefit from vaccination of men aged 27-45 years for prevention of HPV16-positive oropharyngeal cancers.

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing allows women to self-collect cervico-vaginal cells at home (i.e., self-sampling). Using primary data from a randomized pilot study, we evaluated the long-term consequences and cost-effectiveness of using self-sampling to improve participation to routine cervical cancer screening in Norway.Methods: We compared a strategy reflecting screening participation (using reminder letters) to strategies that involved mailing self-sampling device kits to women noncompliant to screening within a 5- or 10-year period under two scenarios: (A) self-sampling respondents had moderate under-screening histories, or (B) respondents to self-sampling had moderate and severe under-screening histories. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and lifetime costs. The “most cost-effective” strategy was identified as the strategy just below $100,000 per QALY gained.Results: Mailing self-sampling device kits to all women noncompliant to screening within a 5- or 10-year period can be more effective and less costly than the current reminder letter policy; however, the optimal self-sampling strategy was dependent on the profile of self-sampling respondents. For example, “10-yearly self-sampling” is preferred ($95,500 per QALY gained) if “5-yearly self-sampling” could only attract moderate under-screeners; however, “5-yearly self-sampling” is preferred if this strategy could additionally attract severe under-screeners.Conclusions: Targeted self-sampling of noncompliers likely represents good value-for-money; however, the preferred strategy is contingent on the screening histories and compliance of respondents.Impact: The magnitude of the health benefit and optimal self-sampling strategy is dependent on the profile and behavior of respondents. Health authorities should understand these factors prior to selecting and implementing a self-sampling policy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(1); 95–103. ©2016 AACR.

Supplementary Figure S1 from The Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Self-Sampling to Improve Routine Cervical Cancer Screening: The Importance of Respondent Screening History and Compliance

We aimed to quantify the health impact of immediate introduction of a single-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program in a high-burden setting, as waiting until forthcoming trials are completed to implement single-dose HPV vaccination may result in health losses, particularly for cohorts who would age-out of vaccination eligibility. Two mathematical models fitted to a high-burden setting projected cervical cancer incidence rates associated with (a) immediate implementation of one-dose HPV vaccination vs (b) waiting 5 years for evidence from randomized trials to determine if one- or two-doses should be implemented. We conducted analyses assuming a single dose was either noninferior or inferior to two doses. The models projected that immediate implementation of a noninferior single-dose vaccine led to a 7.2% to 9.6% increase in cancers averted between 2021 to 2120, compared to waiting 5 years. Health benefits remained greater with immediate implementation despite an inferior single-dose efficacy (80%), but revaccination of one-dose recipients became more important assuming vaccine waning. Under most circumstances, immediate vaccination avoided health losses for those aging out of vaccine eligibility, leading to greater health benefits than waiting for more information in 5 years.

Cervical cancer is a major source of morbidity and mortality in Uganda. In addition to prophylactic HPV vaccination, secondary prevention strategies are needed to reduce cancer burden. We evaluated the potential cancer reductions associated with a hypothetical single-contact therapeutic HPV intervention-with 70% coverage and variable efficacy [30%-100%]-using a three-stage HPV modeling framework reflecting HPV and cervical cancer burden in Uganda. In the reference case, we assumed prophylactic preadolescent HPV vaccination starting in 2020 with 70% coverage. A one-time therapeutic intervention targeting 35-year-old women in 2025 (not age-eligible for prophylactic vaccination) averted 1801 cervical cancers per 100 000 women over their lifetime (100% efficacy) or 533 cancers per 100 000 (30% efficacy). Benefits were considerably smaller in birth cohorts eligible for prophylactic HPV vaccination (768 cases averted per 100 000 at 100% efficacy). Evaluating the population-level impact over 40 years, we found introduction of a therapeutic intervention in 2025 with 100% efficacy targeted annually to 30-year-old women averted 139 000 incident cervical cancers in Uganda. This benefit was greatly reduced if efficacy was lower (30% efficacy; 41 000 cases averted), introduction was delayed (2040 introduction; 72 000 cases averted) or both (22 000 cases averted). We demonstrate the potential benefits of a single-contact HPV therapeutic intervention in a low-income setting, but show the importance of high therapeutic efficacy and early introduction timing relative to existing prophylactic programs. Reduced benefits from a less efficacious intervention may be somewhat offset if available within a shorter time frame.

Objectives To quantify the secondary impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions to cervical cancer screening in the United States, stratified by step in the screening process and primary test modality, on cervical cancer burden. Methods We conducted a comparative model-based analysis using three independent NCI Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network cervical models to quantify the impact of eight alternative COVID-19-related screening disruption scenarios compared to a scenario of no disruptions. Scenarios varied by the duration of the disruption (6 or 24 months), steps in the screening process being disrupted (primary screening, surveillance, colposcopy, excisional treatment), and primary screening modality (cytology alone or cytology plus human papillomavirus “cotesting”). Results The models consistently showed that COVID-19-related disruptions yield small net increases in cervical cancer cases by 2027, which are greater for women previously screened with cytology compared with cotesting. When disruptions affected all four steps in the screening process under cytology-based screening, there were an additional 5–7 and 38–45 cases per one million screened for 6- and 24-month disruptions, respectively. In contrast, under cotesting, there were additional 4–5 and 35–45 cases per one million screened for 6- and 24-month disruptions, respectively. The majority (58–79%) of the projected increases in cases under cotesting were due to disruptions to surveillance, colposcopies, or excisional treatment, rather than to primary screening. Conclusions Women in need of surveillance, colposcopies, or excisional treatment, or whose last primary screen did not involve human papillomavirus testing, may comprise priority groups for reintroductions.

Poor diet increases cardiometabolic disease risk, yet the impact of food service guidelines on employee health and its cost effectiveness is poorly understood. Federal food service guidelines (FFSG) aim to provide United States (U.S.) government employees with healthier food options. Using microsimulation modeling, we estimated changes in the incidence of cardiometabolic disease, related mortality, and the cost effectiveness of implementing FFSG in nationally representative model populations of government and private company employees across 5 years and lifetime. We based estimates on changes in workplace intake of six FFSG dietary targets and showed lifetime reductions of heart attacks (- 107/million), strokes (- 30/million), diabetes (- 134/million), ischemic heart disease deaths (- 56/million), and stroke deaths (- 8/million). FFSG is cost saving overall, with total savings in discounted healthcare costs from $4,611,026 (5 years) to $539,809,707 (lifetime) $U.S. This study demonstrates that FFSG improves health outcomes and is cost saving.

Background: Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes are a rapidly growing policy tool and can be based on absolute volume, sugar content tiers, or absolute sugar content. Yet, their comparative health and economic impacts have not been quantified, in particular, tiered or sugar content taxes that provide industry incentives for sugar reduction. Methods: We estimated incremental changes in diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease, quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and cost-effectiveness of 3 sugar-sweetened beverage tax designs in the United States, on the basis of (1) volume ($0.01/oz), (2) tiers (20 g/8 oz: $0.02/oz), and (3) absolute sugar content ($0.01 per teaspoon added sugar), each compared with a base case of modest ongoing voluntary industry reformulation. A validated microsimulation model, CVD-PREDICT (Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model for Risk, Events, Detection, Interventions, Costs, and Trends), incorporated national demographic and dietary data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, policy effects and sugar-sweetened beverage-related diseases from meta-analyses, and industry reformulation and health-related costs from established sources. Results: Over a lifetime, the volume, tiered, and absolute sugar content taxes would generate $80.4 billion, $142 billion, and $41.7 billion in tax revenue, respectively. From a healthcare perspective, the volume tax would prevent 850 000 cardiovascular disease (95% CI, 836 000–864 000) and 269 000 diabetes mellitus (265 000–274 000) cases, gain 2.44 million quality-adjusted life-years (2.40–2.48), and save $53.2 billion net costs (52.3–54.1). Health gains and savings were approximately doubled for the tiered and absolute sugar content taxes. Results were robust for societal and government perspectives, at 10 years follow-up, and with lower (50%) tax pass-through. Health gains were largest in young adults, blacks and Hispanics, and lower-income Americans. Conclusions: All sugar-sweetened beverage tax designs would generate substantial health gains and savings. Tiered and absolute sugar content taxes should be considered and evaluated for maximal potential gains.

Background. To interpret cervical cancer screening model results, we need to understand the influence of model structure and assumptions on cancer incidence and mortality predictions. Cervical cancer cases and deaths following screening can be attributed to 1) (precancerous or cancerous) disease that occurred after screening, 2) disease that was present but not screen detected, or 3) disease that was screen detected but not successfully treated. We examined the relative contributions of each of these using 4 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models. Methods. The maximum clinical incidence reduction (MCLIR) method compares changes in the number of clinically detected cervical cancers and mortality among 4 scenarios: 1) no screening, 2) one-time perfect screening at age 45 that detects all existing disease and delivers perfect (i.e., 100% effective) treatment of all screen-detected disease, 3) one-time realistic-sensitivity cytological screening and perfect treatment of all screen-detected disease, and 4) one-time realistic-sensitivity cytological screening and realistic-effectiveness treatment of all screen-detected disease. Results. Predicted incidence reductions ranged from 55% to 74%, and mortality reduction ranged from 56% to 62% within 15 years of follow-up for scenario 4 across models. The proportion of deaths due to disease not detected by screening differed across the models (21%–35%), as did the failure of treatment (8%–16%) and disease occurring after screening (from 1%–6%). Conclusions. The MCLIR approach aids in the interpretation of variability across model results. We showed that the reasons why screening failed to prevent cancers and deaths differed between the models. This likely reflects uncertainty about unobservable model inputs and structures; the impact of this uncertainty on policy conclusions should be examined via comparing findings from different well-calibrated and validated model platforms.

Summary Background In May, 2018, the Director-General of WHO issued a global call to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, which will involve ambitious screening and vaccination coverage targets. We aimed to assess the potential for, and timing of, cervical cancer elimination in the USA and whether this could be expedited by adopting ambitious coverage targets, using two cervical cancer simulation models. Methods In this modelling study, we used two independently-developed cervical cancer microsimulation models—Harvard and Policy1-Cervix—to estimate changes in the incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-induced cervical cancer over time in the USA, including herd effects from vaccination. We compared nine alternative scenarios for prophylactic HPV vaccination and cervical screening scale-up with a status quo scenario that involved no additional interventions in the context of a threshold for cervical cancer elimination of four or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years. We also estimated the number of cervical cancer cases that could be averted between 2019 and 2100 associated with the adoption of ambitious goals for cervical cancer screening and vaccination coverage, and other potential strategies. Findings Under status quo assumptions, the Havard and Policy1-Cervix models projected that cervical cancer incidence would decrease to less than four or fewer new cases per 100 000 women-years by the 2038 and 2046, respectively. Scaling up screening coverage to 90% in 2020, was the most effective intervention to expedite time to elimination (10–13-year reduction), averting a mean of 1400–2088 additional cases annually between 2019 and 2100. Increasing HPV vaccination coverage to 90% or vaccinating adults aged 26–45 years had relatively little effect on cervical cancer incidence. Sensitivity analysis using different population structures resulted in differences in time to elimination (range −10 years to +27 years) compared with status quo predictions. Interpretation The USA is on track to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem in the next two to three decades. Time to elimination could be expedited by 10–13 years by achieving higher screening coverage. Targeting of underscreened and under-vaccinated women remains key to achieving cervical cancer elimination for all women. Funding US National Cancer Institute.

Summary Background WHO is developing a global strategy towards eliminating cervical cancer as a public health problem, which proposes an elimination threshold of four cases per 100 000 women and includes 2030 triple-intervention coverage targets for scale-up of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to 90%, twice-lifetime cervical screening to 70%, and treatment of pre-invasive lesions and invasive cancer to 90%. We assessed the impact of achieving the 90–70–90 triple-intervention targets on cervical cancer mortality and deaths averted over the next century. We also assessed the potential for the elimination initiative to support target 3.4 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—a one-third reduction in premature mortality from non-communicable diseases by 2030. Methods The WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC) involves three independent, dynamic models of HPV infection, cervical carcinogenesis, screening, and precancer and invasive cancer treatment. Reductions in age-standardised rates of cervical cancer mortality in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) were estimated for three core scenarios: girls-only vaccination at age 9 years with catch-up for girls aged 10–14 years; girls-only vaccination plus once-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up; and girls-only vaccination plus twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up. Vaccination was assumed to provide 100% lifetime protection against infections with HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, and to scale up to 90% coverage in 2020. Cervical screening involved HPV testing at age 35 years, or at ages 35 years and 45 years, with scale-up to 45% coverage by 2023, 70% by 2030, and 90% by 2045, and we assumed that 50% of women with invasive cervical cancer would receive appropriate surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy by 2023, which would increase to 90% by 2030. We summarised results using the median (range) of model predictions. Findings In 2020, the estimated cervical cancer mortality rate across all 78 LMICs was 13·2 (range 12·9–14·1) per 100 000 women. Compared to the status quo, by 2030, vaccination alone would have minimal impact on cervical cancer mortality, leading to a 0·1% (0·1–0·5) reduction, but additionally scaling up twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 34·2% (23·3–37·8), averting 300 000 (300 000–400 000) deaths by 2030 (with similar results for once-lifetime screening). By 2070, scaling up vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 61·7% (61·4–66·1), averting 4·8 million (4·1–4·8) deaths. By 2070, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 88·9% (84·0–89·3), averting 13·3 million (13·1–13·6) deaths (with once-lifetime screening), or by 92·3% (88·4–93·0), averting 14·6 million (14·1–14·6) deaths (with twice-lifetime screening). By 2120, vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 89·5% (86·6–89·9), averting 45·8 million (44·7–46·4) deaths. By 2120, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 97·9% (95·0–98·0), averting 60·8 million (60·2–61·2) deaths (with once-lifetime screening), or by 98·6% (96·5–98·6), averting 62·6 million (62·1–62·8) deaths (with twice-lifetime screening). With the WHO triple-intervention strategy, over the next 10 years, about half (48% [45–55]) of deaths averted would be in sub-Saharan Africa and almost a third (32% [29–34]) would be in South Asia; over the next 100 years, almost 90% of deaths averted would be in these regions. For premature deaths (age 30–69 years), the WHO triple-intervention strategy would result in rate reductions of 33·9% (24·4–37·9) by 2030, 96·2% (94·3–96·8) by 2070, and 98·6% (96·9–98·8) by 2120. Interpretation These findings emphasise the importance of acting immediately on three fronts to scale up vaccination, screening, and treatment for pre-invasive and invasive cervical cancer. In the next 10 years, a one-third reduction in the rate of premature mortality from cervical cancer in LMICs is possible, contributing to the realisation of the 2030 UN SDGs. Over the next century, successful implementation of the WHO elimination strategy would reduce cervical cancer mortality by almost 99% and save more than 62 million women's lives. Funding WHO, UNDP, UN Population Fund, UNICEF–WHO–World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Germany Federal Ministry of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Centre for Research Excellence in Cervical Cancer Control, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Compute Canada, and Fonds de recherche du Quebec–Sante.

Summary Background The WHO Director-General has issued a call for action to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To help inform global efforts, we modelled potential human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cervical screening scenarios in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) to examine the feasibility and timing of elimination at different thresholds, and to estimate the number of cervical cancer cases averted on the path to elimination. Methods The WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC), which consists of three independent transmission-dynamic models identified by WHO according to predefined criteria, projected reductions in cervical cancer incidence over time in 78 LMICs for three standardised base-case scenarios: girls-only vaccination; girls-only vaccination and once-lifetime screening; and girls-only vaccination and twice-lifetime screening. Girls were vaccinated at age 9 years (with a catch-up to age 14 years), assuming 90% coverage and 100% lifetime protection against HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Cervical screening involved HPV testing once or twice per lifetime at ages 35 years and 45 years, with uptake increasing from 45% (2023) to 90% (2045 onwards). The elimination thresholds examined were an average age-standardised cervical cancer incidence of four or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years and ten or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, and an 85% or greater reduction in incidence. Sensitivity analyses were done, varying vaccination and screening strategies and assumptions. We summarised results using the median (range) of model predictions. Findings Girls-only HPV vaccination was predicted to reduce the median age-standardised cervical cancer incidence in LMICs from 19·8 (range 19·4–19·8) to 2·1 (2·0–2·6) cases per 100 000 women-years over the next century (89·4% [86·2–90·1] reduction), and to avert 61·0 million (60·5–63·0) cases during this period. Adding twice-lifetime screening reduced the incidence to 0·7 (0·6–1·6) cases per 100 000 women-years (96·7% [91·3–96·7] reduction) and averted an extra 12·1 million (9·5–13·7) cases. Girls-only vaccination was predicted to result in elimination in 60% (58–65) of LMICs based on the threshold of four or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, in 99% (89–100) of LMICs based on the threshold of ten or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, and in 87% (37–99) of LMICs based on the 85% or greater reduction threshold. When adding twice-lifetime screening, 100% (71–100) of LMICs reached elimination for all three thresholds. In regions in which all countries can achieve cervical cancer elimination with girls-only vaccination, elimination could occur between 2059 and 2102, depending on the threshold and region. Introducing twice-lifetime screening accelerated elimination by 11–31 years. Long-term vaccine protection was required for elimination. Interpretation Predictions were consistent across our three models and suggest that high HPV vaccination coverage of girls can lead to cervical cancer elimination in most LMICs by the end of the century. Screening with high uptake will expedite reductions and will be necessary to eliminate cervical cancer in countries with the highest burden. Funding WHO, UNDP, UN Population Fund, UNICEF–WHO–World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Fonds de recherche du Quebec–Sante, Compute Canada, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia Centre for Research Excellence in Cervical Cancer Control.

Background The natural history of human papillomavirus (HPV)-induced cervical cancer (CC) is not directly observable, yet the age of HPV acquisition and duration of preclinical disease (dwell time) influences the effectiveness of alternative preventive policies. We performed a Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) comparative modeling analysis to characterize the age of acquisition of cancer-causing HPV infections and implied dwell times for distinct phases of cervical carcinogenesis. Methods Using four CISNET-cervical models with varying underlying structures but fit to common US epidemiological data, we estimated the age of acquisition of causal HPV infections and dwell times associated with three phases of cancer development: HPV, high-grade precancer, and cancer sojourn time. We stratified these estimates by HPV genotype under both natural history and CC screening scenarios, because screening prevents cancer development that affects the mix of detected cancers. Results The median time from HPV acquisition to cancer detection ranged from 17.5 to 26.0 years across the four models. Three models projected that 50% of unscreened women acquired their causal HPV infection between ages 19 and 23 years, whereas one model projected these infections occurred later (age 34 years). In the context of imperfect compliance with US screening guidelines, the median age of causal infection was 4.4–15.9 years later compared with model projections in the absence of screening. Conclusions These validated CISNET-CC models, which reflect some uncertainty in the development of CC, elucidate important drivers of HPV vaccination and CC screening policies and emphasize the value of comparative modeling when evaluating public health policies.

Several countries have implemented primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening. HPV testing enables home-based, self-collected sampling (self-sampling), which provides similar diagnostic accuracy as clinician-collected samples. We evaluated the impact and cost-effectiveness of switching an entire organized screening program to primary HPV self-sampling among cohorts of HPV vaccinated and unvaccinated Norwegian women. We conducted a model-based analysis to project long-term health and economic outcomes for birth cohorts with different HPV vaccine exposure, i.e., pre-adolescent vaccination (2000- and 2008-cohorts), multi-age cohort vaccination (1991-cohort) or no vaccination (1985-cohort). We compared the cost-effectiveness of switching current guidelines with clinician-collected HPV testing to HPV self-sampling for these cohorts and considered an additional 44 strategies involving either HPV self-sampling or clinician-collected HPV testing at different screening frequencies for the 2000- and 2008-cohorts. Given Norwegian benchmarks for cost-effectiveness, we considered a strategy with an additional cost per quality-adjusted life-year below $55,000 as cost-effective. HPV self-sampling strategies considerably reduced screening costs (i.e., by 24-40% across cohorts and alternative strategies) and were more cost-effective than clinician-collected HPV testing. For cohorts offered pre-adolescent vaccination, cost-effective strategies involved HPV self-sampling three times (2000-cohort) and twice (2008-cohort) per lifetime. In conclusion, we found that switching from clinician-collected to self-collected HPV testing in cervical screening may be cost-effective among both highly vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts of Norwegian women. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Background: High intake of added sugar is linked to weight gain and cardiometabolic risk. In 2018, the US National Salt and Sugar Reduction Initiative proposed government-supported voluntary national sugar reduction targets. This intervention’s potential effects and cost-effectiveness are unclear. Methods: A validated microsimulation model, CVD-PREDICT (Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model for Risk, Events, Detection, Interventions, Costs, and Trends), coded in C++, was used to estimate incremental changes in type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of the US National Salt and Sugar Reduction Initiative policy. The model was run at the individual level, incorporating the annual probability of each person’s transition between health statuses on the basis of risk factors. The model incorporated national demographic and dietary data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey across 3 cycles (2011 through 2016), added sugar-related diseases from meta-analyses, and policy costs and health-related costs from established sources. A simulated nationally representative US population was created and followed until age 100 years or death, with 2019 as the year of intervention start. Findings were evaluated over 10 years and a lifetime from health care and societal perspectives. Uncertainty was evaluated in a 1-way analysis by assuming 50% industry compliance and probabilistic sensitivity analyses through a second-order Monte Carlo approach. Model outputs included averted diabetes cases, CVD events and CVD deaths, QALYs gained, and formal health care cost savings, stratified by age, race, income, and education. Results: Achieving the US National Salt and Sugar Reduction Initiative sugar reduction targets could prevent 2.48 million CVD events, 0.49 million CVD deaths, and 0.75 million diabetes cases; gain 6.67 million QALYs; and save $160.88 billion net costs from a societal perspective over a lifetime. The policy became cost-effective ( Conclusions: Implementing and achieving the US National Salt and Sugar Reduction Initiative sugar reformation targets could generate substantial health gains, equity gains, and cost savings.

Objectives. To estimate the health impact and cost-effectiveness of a national penny-per-ounce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax, overall and with stratified costs and benefits for 9 distinct stakeholder groups. Methods. We used a validated microsimulation model (CVD PREDICT) to estimate cardiovascular disease reductions, quality-adjusted life years gained, and cost-effectiveness for US adults aged 35 to 85 years, evaluating full and partial consumer price pass-through. Results. From health care and societal perspectives, the SSB tax was highly cost-saving. When we evaluated health gains, taxes paid, and out-of-pocket health care savings for 6 distinct consumer categories, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $20 247 to $42 662 per quality-adjusted life year for 100% price pass-through (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios similar with 50% pass-through). For the beverage industry, net costs were $0.92 billion with 100% pass-through (largely tax-implementation costs) and $49.75 billion with 50% pass-through (largely because of partial industry coverage of the tax). For government, the SSB tax positively affected both tax revenues and health care cost savings. Conclusions. This stratified analysis improves on unitary approaches, illuminating distinct costs and benefits for stakeholders with political influence over SSB tax decisions.

Summary Background To eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, WHO currently recommends routine vaccination of adolescent girls with two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine before sexual debut. However, many countries have yet to implement this because of financial or logistical barriers to delivering two doses outside the infant immunisation programme. Methods Using three independent HPV transmission models, we estimated the long-term health benefits and cost-effectiveness of one-dose versus two-dose HPV vaccination, in 192 countries, assuming that one dose of the vaccine gives either a shorter duration of full protection (20 or 30 years) or lifelong protection but lower vaccine efficacy (e.g., 80%) compared to two doses. We simulated routine vaccination with the 9-valent HPV vaccine in 10-year-old girls at 80% coverage for the years 2021–2120, with a one-year catch-up of 80% 11–14-year-old girls on the first year of the programme. Findings Over the next century, one-dose vaccination at 80% coverage could avert 64 million (80%UI 62·2–64·8) and 66·6 million (80%UI 63·4–69·1) cervical cancer cases should one dose of the vaccine confer 20 and 30 years of protection, respectively. Should one dose of the vaccine provide lifelong protection at 80% vaccine efficacy, 68·4 million (80%UI 63·8–69·4) cervical cancer cases could be prevented. Across all country income groups, two-dose schedules conferring lifelong protection would avert only slightly more cases (2·1–8·7 million) than the one-dose scenarios explored. Around 330 to 5230 additional girls need to be vaccinated with the second dose to prevent one cervical cancer case, depending on the epidemiological profiles of the country. Interpretation Results were consistent across the three independent models and suggest that one-dose vaccination has similar health benefits to a two-dose programme while simplifying vaccine delivery, reducing costs and alleviating vaccine supply constraints. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Research in context Evidence before this study Primary prevention of cervical cancer is now available with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Initially administered as a three-dose regimen, the HPV vaccine schedule recommended by WHO has now switched to two doses for individuals below the age of 15 years. Although WHO recommends all countries to routinely immunise adolescent girls with two doses, many low- and middle-income countries, with high disease burden, have yet to implement national HPV vaccination programmes because of the challenges of delivering two vaccine doses to adolescent females. Recently, HPV vaccine implementation in many countries has been further delayed due to constraints in vaccine supply and difficulties in access during COVID-19 epidemics. These financial, logistical, and supply constraints have motivated research into one-dose vaccination schedules. Evidence emerging from trials and observational studies suggests that one dose may also provide a high level of protection against incident and persistent HPV infections. If proven effective, the one-dose HPV vaccination schedule would simplify vaccine delivery and lower costs of national vaccination programmes, potentially enabling more countries to implement one and as a result, facilitating global cervical cancer prevention. We searched PubMed for trials, cohort and modelling studies published in 2018 and 2020, with the terms “(health impact OR impact OR modelling OR cost-effectiveness OR CEA OR durability OR effectiveness) AND (HPV OR human papillomavirus OR cervical cancer)” and identified 151 results. Ten published articles—four trials, three cohort studies, two modelling analyses, one systematic review of trials—evaluated the population impact of one dose of the vaccine on cervical cancer disease outcome among females and all studies showed one dose of the vaccine might be as effective as two doses in preventing HPV infection. However as the trials and cohorts were single-country studies in select populations, the global impact remains unknown. Both published modelling analyses only used one model to estimate the impact of one-dose vaccination, and only examined a few countries. To our knowledge, no published article has modelled the global impact of routine one-dose vaccination on cervical cancer prevention by synthesising the results from more than one model. Added value of this study This study presents the first evidence on the potential global impact of a routine one-dose regimen, from a comparative modelling analysis that synthesises results from three published dynamic models calibrated to countries with varying epidemiological and demographic profiles. We found consistent results across all models suggesting that routine one-dose vaccination provides the majority of health benefits to the two-dose programme should a single dose of the vaccine confer more than 20 years of protection at full potential efficacy or 80% efficacy with lifelong protection. Implications of all the available evidence Findings suggest that routine one-dose vaccinations could avert almost as many cervical cancer cases as a two-dose programme. The one-dose regimen would be cheaper and easier to implement for most countries while alleviating vaccine supply constraints. To cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments have had to implement stringent physical distancing measures, which has led to the suspension of routine immunisation programmes. Public health authorities grapple with the logistic challenges of delivering immunisation services while minimising the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Compared to the two-dose vaccination schedule, a one-dose vaccination schedule would reduce interactions between vaccinees and health workers, simplifying vaccine delivery while also decreasing SARS-CoV-2 exposure.

Following the global call for action by the World Health Organization to eliminate cervical cancer (CC), we evaluated how each CC policy decision in Norway influenced the timing of CC elimination, and whether introducing nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine would accelerate elimination timing and be cost-effective. We used a multi-modeling approach that captured HPV transmission and cervical carcinogenesis to estimate the CC incidence associated with six past and future CC prevention policy decisions compared with a pre-vaccination scenario involving 3-yearly cytology-based screening. Scenarios examined the introduction of routine HPV vaccination of 12-year-old girls with quadrivalent vaccine in 2009, a temporary catch-up program for females aged up to 26 years in 2016–2018 with bivalent vaccine, the universal switch to bivalent vaccine in 2017, expansion to include 12-year-old boys in 2018, the switch from cytology- to HPV-based screening for women aged 34–69 in 2020, and the potential switch to nonavalent vaccine in 2021. Introducing routine female vaccination in 2009 enabled elimination to be achieved by 2056 and prevented 17,300 cases. Cumulatively, subsequent policy decisions accelerated elimination to 2039. According to our modeling assumptions, switching to the nonavalent vaccine would not be considered ‘good value for money’ at relevant cost-effectiveness thresholds in Norway unless the incremental cost was $19 per dose or less (range: $17–24) compared to the bivalent vaccine. CC control policies implemented over the last decade in Norway may have accelerated the timeframe to elimination by more than 17 years and prevented over 23,800 cases by 2110.

Background: African-American women in the United States have an elevated risk of cervical cancer incidence and mortality. In the Mississippi Delta, cervical cancer disparities are particularly stark. Methods: We conducted a micro-costing study alongside a group randomized trial that evaluated the efficacy of a patient-centered approach (“Choice” between self-collection at home for HPV testing or current standard of care within the public health system in Mississippi) versus the current standard of care [“Standard-of-care screening,” involving cytology (i.e., Pap) and HPV co-testing at the Health Department clinics]. The interventions in both study arms were delivered by community health workers (CHW). Using cost, screening uptake, and colposcopy adherence data from the trial, we informed a mathematical model of HPV infection and cervical carcinogenesis to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the “Choice” and “Standard-of-care screening” interventions among un/underscreened African-American women in the Mississippi Delta. Results: When each intervention was simulated every 5 years from ages 25 to 65 years, the “Standard-of-care screening” strategy reduced cancer risk by 6.4% and was not an efficient strategy; “Choice” was more effective and efficient, reducing lifetime risk of cervical cancer by 14.8% and costing $62,720 per year of life saved (YLS). Screening uptake and colposcopy adherence were key drivers of intervention cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: Offering “Choice” to un/underscreened African-American women in the Mississippi Delta led to greater uptake than CHW-facilitated screening at the Health Department, and may be cost-effective. Impact: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of an HPV self-collection intervention to reduce disparities.

Background: Excess caloric intake is linked to weight gain, obesity, and related diseases, including type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Obesity incidence is rising, with nearly 3 in 4 US adults being overweight or obese. In 2018, the US federal government finalized the implementation of mandatory labeling of calorie content on all menu items across major chain restaurants nationally as a strategy to support informed consumer choice, reduce caloric intake, and potentially encourage restaurant reformulations. Yet, the potential health and economic impacts of this policy remain unclear. Methods and Results: We used a validated microsimulation model (CVD-PREDICT) to estimate reductions in CVD events, diabetes mellitus cases, gains in quality-adjusted life years, costs, and cost-effectiveness of the menu calorie labeling intervention, based on consumer responses alone, and further accounting for potential industry reformulation. The model incorporated nationally representative demographic and dietary data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2009 to 2016; policy effects on consumer diets and body mass index-disease effects from published meta-analyses; and policy effects on industry reformulation, policy costs (policy administration, industry compliance, and reformulation), and health-related costs (formal and informal healthcare costs, productivity costs) from established sources or reasonable assumptions. We modeled change in calories to change in weight using an established dynamic weight-change model, assuming 50% of expected calorie reductions would translate to long-term reductions. Findings were evaluated over 5 years and a lifetime from healthcare and societal perspectives, with uncertainty incorporated in both 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Between 2018 and 2023, implementation of the restaurant menu calorie labeling law was estimated, based on consumer response alone, to prevent 14 698 new CVD cases (including 1575 CVD deaths) and 21 522 new type 2 diabetes mellitus cases, gaining 8749 quality-adjusted life years. Over a lifetime, corresponding values were 135 781 new CVD cases (including 27 646 CVD deaths), 99 736 type 2 diabetes mellitus cases, and 367 450 quality-adjusted life years. Assuming modest restaurant item reformulation, both health and economic benefits were estimated to be about 2-fold larger than based on consumer response alone. The consumer response alone was estimated to be cost-saving by 2023, with net lifetime savings of $10.42B from a healthcare perspective and $12.71B from a societal perspective. Findings were robust in a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Our national model suggests that the full implementation of the US calorie menu labeling law will generate significant health gains and healthcare and societal cost-savings. Industry responses to modestly reformulate menu items would provide even larger additional benefits.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines may provide some level of cross‐protection against high‐risk HPV genotypes not directly targeted by the vaccines. We evaluated the long‐term health and economic impacts of routine HPV vaccination using either the nonavalent HPV vaccine or the bivalent HPV vaccine in the context of 48 Gavi‐eligible countries. We used a multi‐modeling approach to compare the bivalent with or without cross‐protection and the nonavalent HPV vaccine. The optimal, that is, most cost‐effective, vaccine was the vaccine with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio below the per‐capita gross domestic product (GDP) for each country. By 2100 and assuming 70% HPV vaccination coverage, a bivalent vaccine without cross‐protection, a bivalent vaccine with favorable cross‐protection and the nonavalent vaccine were projected to avert 14.9, 17.2 and 18.5 million cumulative cases of cervical cancer across all 48 Gavi‐eligible countries, respectively. The relative value of the bivalent vaccine compared to the nonavalent vaccine increased assuming a bivalent vaccine conferred high cross‐protection. For example, assuming a cost‐effectiveness threshold of per‐capita GDP, the nonavalent vaccine was optimal in 83% (n = 40) of countries if the bivalent vaccine did not confer cross‐protection; however, the proportion of countries decreased to 63% (n = 30) if the bivalent vaccine conferred high cross‐protection. For lower cost‐effectiveness thresholds, the bivalent vaccine was optimal in a greater proportion of countries, under both cross‐protection assumptions. Although the nonavalent vaccine is projected to avert more cases of cervical cancer, the bivalent vaccine with favorable cross‐protection can prevent a considerable number of cases and would be considered a high‐value vaccine for many Gavi‐eligible countries.

Background: Patients who receive an abnormal cancer screening result require follow-up for diagnostic testing, but the time to follow-up varies across patients and practices. Methods: We used a simulation study to estimate the change in lifetime screening benefits when time to follow-up for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers was increased. Estimates were based on four independently developed microsimulation models that each simulated the life course of adults eligible for breast (women ages 50–74 years), cervical (women ages 21–65 years), or colorectal (adults ages 50–75 years) cancer screening. We assumed screening based on biennial mammography for breast cancer, triennial Papanicolaou testing for cervical cancer, and annual fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer. For each cancer type, we simulated diagnostic testing immediately and at 3, 6, and 12 months after an abnormal screening exam. Results: We found declines in screening benefit with longer times to diagnostic testing, particularly for breast cancer screening. Compared to immediate diagnostic testing, testing at 3 months resulted in reduced screening benefit, with fewer undiscounted life years gained per 1,000 screened (breast: 17.3%, cervical: 0.8%, colorectal: 2.0% and 2.7%, from two colorectal cancer models), fewer cancers prevented (cervical: 1.4% fewer, colorectal: 0.5% and 1.7% fewer, respectively), and, for breast and colorectal cancer, a less favorable stage distribution. Conclusions: Longer times to diagnostic testing after an abnormal screening test can decrease screening effectiveness, but the impact varies substantially by cancer type. Impact: Understanding the impact of time to diagnostic testing on screening effectiveness can help inform quality improvement efforts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(2); 158–64. ©2017 AACR.

Background Although new human papillomavirus (HPV) infections can occur at all ages, the age at which women acquire their "causal" HPV infection that develops into cervical cancer is poorly understood and practically unobservable. We aimed to estimate the age distribution at which individuals acquired their causal HPV infection in the absence of HPV vaccination or screening to help guide the optimal use of both. Methods Using an empirically calibrated mathematical model that simulates the natural history of cervical cancer, we estimated the cumulative number of causal HPV infections by age, stratified by HPV genotype (HPV16 vs. other HPV genotypes), and the direct age-specific reduction in cancer incidence for alternative vaccination initiation scenarios (i.e., age 9-45 years). Results Our model projected that among all cervical cancers, 50% and 75% of women acquired their causal HPV infection by ages 20.6 (range: 20.1-21.1) and 30.6 (range: 29.6-31.6) years, respectively. HPV16 infections were acquired at an earlier age. Assuming 95% efficacy against HPV16 and HPV18 infections, the direct reduction in lifetime risk of cervical cancer varied from 55% (53-56%) among women vaccinated at age 9 years to 6% (range: 6-7%) among women vaccinated at age 45 years. Similar patterns were observed for the second-generation vaccine. Conclusions Although new HPV infections and precancers can occur throughout a woman's lifetime, only a small proportion are acquired in mid-adult women and are vaccine-preventable. Our simulations highlight the potential limitations of using surrogate endpoints for vaccine efficacy studies of mid-adult women to guide policy decisions for implementation.

Background. Despite some advances, cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death and healthcare costs in the United States. We therefore developed a comprehensive CVD policy simulation model that identifies cost-effective approaches for reducing CVD burden. This paper aims to: 1) describe our model in detail; and 2) perform model validation analyses. Methods. The model simulates 1,000,000 adults (ages 35 to 80 years) using a variety of CVD-related epidemiological data, including previously calibrated Framingham-based risk scores for coronary heart disease and stroke. We validated our microsimulation model using recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data, with baseline values collected in 1999-2000 and cause-specific mortality follow-up through 2011. Model-based (simulated) results were compared to observed all-cause and CVD-specific mortality data (from NHANES) for the same starting population using survival curves and, in a method not typically used for disease model validation, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results. Observed 10-year all-cause mortality in NHANES v. the simulation model was 11.2% (95% CI, 10.3% to 12.2%) v. 10.9%; corresponding results for CVD mortality were 2.2% (1.8% to 2.7%) v. 2.6%. Areas under the ROC curves for model-predicted 10-year all-cause and CVD mortality risks were 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) and 0.84 (0.81 to 0.88), respectively; corresponding results for 5-year risks were 0.80 (0.77 to 0.83) and 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87), respectively. Limitations. The model is limited by the uncertainties in the data used to estimate its input parameters. Additionally, our validation analyses did not include non-fatal CVD outcomes due to NHANES data limitations. Conclusions. The simulation model performed well in matching to observed nationally representative longitudinal mortality data. ROC curve analysis, which has been traditionally used for risk prediction models, can also be used to assess discrimination for disease simulation models.

There is limited information on the cost-inefficiencies of non-adherence to recommended cervical cancer screening or the potential value for improving non-adherence. We estimated the incremental value of adhering to recommended screening every three years with cytology, using a disease simulation model that integrated real-world screening practice data from New Mexico. The amount that can be spent to improve adherence was estimated by calculating the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) under scenarios of Current Practice (assuming a population of mixed adherence) and Uniformly Non-Adherent populations with imperfect or perfect adherence to follow-up of screen-positive women. Getting unscreened women screened every three years by cytology was a better value than increasing screening in the under-screened or reducing screening in the over-screened. For example, INMBs were $3998 for screening previously unscreened women versus $136 for eliminating annual screening at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Strategies to reach unscreened women are potentially high-value investments.

Summary Background The past two decades have seen expansion of childhood vaccination programmes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We quantify the health impact of these programmes by estimating the deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted by vaccination against ten pathogens in 98 LMICs between 2000 and 2030. Methods 16 independent research groups provided model-based disease burden estimates under a range of vaccination coverage scenarios for ten pathogens: hepatitis B virus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, human papillomavirus, Japanese encephalitis, measles, Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, Streptococcus pneumoniae, rotavirus, rubella, and yellow fever. Using standardised demographic data and vaccine coverage, the impact of vaccination programmes was determined by comparing model estimates from a no-vaccination counterfactual scenario with those from a reported and projected vaccination scenario. We present deaths and DALYs averted between 2000 and 2030 by calendar year and by annual birth cohort. Findings We estimate that vaccination of the ten selected pathogens will have averted 69 million (95% credible interval 52–88) deaths between 2000 and 2030, of which 37 million (30–48) were averted between 2000 and 2019. From 2000 to 2019, this represents a 45% (36–58) reduction in deaths compared with the counterfactual scenario of no vaccination. Most of this impact is concentrated in a reduction in mortality among children younger than 5 years (57% reduction [52–66]), most notably from measles. Over the lifetime of birth cohorts born between 2000 and 2030, we predict that 120 million (93–150) deaths will be averted by vaccination, of which 58 million (39–76) are due to measles vaccination and 38 million (25–52) are due to hepatitis B vaccination. We estimate that increases in vaccine coverage and introductions of additional vaccines will result in a 72% (59–81) reduction in lifetime mortality in the 2019 birth cohort. Interpretation Increases in vaccine coverage and the introduction of new vaccines into LMICs have had a major impact in reducing mortality. These public health gains are predicted to increase in coming decades if progress in increasing coverage is sustained. Funding Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Background Poor diet is a leading risk factor for cardiometabolic disease (CMD) in the United States, but its economic costs are unknown. We sought to estimate the cost associated with suboptimal diet in the US. Methods and findings A validated microsimulation model (Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model for Risk, Events, Detection, Interventions, Costs, and Trends [CVD PREDICT]) was used to estimate annual cardiovascular disease (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, angina, and stroke) and type 2 diabetes costs associated with suboptimal intake of 10 food groups (fruits, vegetables, nuts/seeds, whole grains, unprocessed red meats, processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, polyunsaturated fats, seafood omega-3 fats, sodium). A representative US population sample of individuals aged 35–85 years was created using weighted sampling from National Health And Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 2009–2012 cycles. Estimates were stratified by cost type (acute, chronic, drug), sex, age, race, education, BMI, and health insurance. Annual diet-related CMD costs were $301/person (95% CI $287–$316). This translates to $50.4 billion in CMD costs (18.2% of total) for the whole population, of which 84.3% are attributed to acute care ($42.6 billion). The largest annual per capita costs are attributed to low consumption of nuts/seeds ($81; 95% CI $74–$86) and seafood omega-3 fats ($76; 95% CI $70–$83), and the lowest are attributed to high consumption of red meat ($3; 95% CI $2.8–$3.5) and polyunsaturated fats ($20; 95% CI $19–$22). Individual costs are highest for men ($380), those aged ≥65 years ($408), blacks ($320), the less educated ($392), and those with Medicare ($481) or dual-eligible ($536) insurance coverage. A limitation of our study is that dietary intake data were assessed from 24-hour dietary recall, which may not fully capture a diet over a person's life span and is subject to measurement errors. Conclusions Suboptimal diet of 10 dietary factors accounts for 18.2% of all ischemic heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes costs in the US, highlighting that timely implementation of diet policies could address these health and economic burdens., In a microsimulation model-based cost analysis, Gaziano and colleagues investigate the estimated cardiometabolic disease costs in the United States associated with suboptimal diet., Author summary Why was this study done? Unhealthy diet is responsible for up to 45% of all cardiometabolic disease (CMD) deaths. In addition to the health impact, CMDs pose a substantial economic burden. Despite the clear association between poor diet and CMD, the costs of a suboptimal diet pattern in the US have not been estimated. We sought to estimate the CMD-related cost associated with suboptimal diet in the US. What did the researchers do and find? We used a microsimulation model to estimate annual cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes costs associated with suboptimal intake of 10 food groups. A representative US population sample of individuals aged 35–85 years was created from National Health And Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 2009–2012 cycles. Annual diet-related CMD costs were $301/person, which translates to $50.4 billion for the whole population (18.2% of total costs). The largest annual per capita costs are attributed to low consumption of nuts/seeds ($81) and seafood omega-3 fats ($76), and the lowest are attributed to high consumption of red meat ($3) and polyunsaturated fats ($20). Individual costs are highest for men ($380), those aged ≥65 years ($408), blacks ($320), the less educated ($392), and those with Medicare ($481) or dual-eligible ($536) insurance coverage. What do these findings mean? The CMD costs estimated to be associated with suboptimal diet highlight the need to implement diet policies to address health and economic burdens. The high CMD-related costs associated with suboptimal diet combined with the finding that the cost burden often falls upon the government illustrates the need for community and policy strategies to reduce this financial burden.

Background: Data to inform evidence-based policy of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine delivery strategies in low- and middle-income countries are limited. We examined the cost-effectiveness of campaign compared with routine delivery strategies of adolescent female HPV vaccination in Uganda. Methods: We used a multiple modeling approach that captured HPV transmission, cervical carcinogenesis, and population demographics to project health and economic outcomes associated with HPV vaccination. Costs included vaccination and operational costs and cervical cancer costs over the lifetimes of the current female population in Uganda. Health outcomes included number of cervical cancer cases and disability-adjusted life years (DALY). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (i.e., cost per DALY averted) were calculated and compared against gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Results: Compared with routine HPV vaccination of 9-year-old girls at 70% coverage, campaign vaccination yielded greater health benefits if campaigns occurred frequently and targeted a wide age range. Campaign delivery strategies were both less costly and more effective than routine HPV vaccination. Campaign vaccination of 9- to 30-year-old girls/women at a 3-year frequency (40% coverage) was considered cost-effective compared with the GDP per capita threshold for Uganda ($674 in U.S. 2015 dollars). Conclusions: We projected that campaign HPV vaccination would provide substantial population health benefits compared with routine vaccination. Expanding the target age range of campaign vaccination up to age 30 years may be an efficient strategy, depending on the achievable coverage level and campaign frequency. Impact: In settings where routine health systems infrastructure may be limited, reaching adolescent populations with a campaign delivery strategy may be an efficient use of resources.

OBJECTIVES: Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake is linked to weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (CVD). SSBs taxes are a policy tool to reduce intake, and volume-based taxes have been passed in the US. Yet, the comparative health and economic impacts of volume-based, tiered, or sugar content-based SSB taxes have not been quantified. We aimed to estimate the health and economic impacts of these varying SSB tax designs in the US. METHODS: A validated microsimulation model, CVD PREDICT, was used to estimate reductions in CVD events, diabetes cases, gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of three SSB tax designs in US adults: (1) volume tax ($0.01/oz), (2) tiered tax (no tax for 20 g/8 oz, and (3) sugar content tax ($0.01/tsp of added sugar). Model inputs included national demographic and dietary data from NHANES 2009–2014; policy effects on consumer intakes, industry responses, and SSB-disease effects from meta-analyses; and policy costs (tax implementation, industry reformulation) and health-related costs (formal/informal healthcare costs, productivity costs) from established sources. Findings were evaluated over 10 years and a lifetime, with costs inflated to constant 2018 USD, and costs and QALYs discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: All SSB tax designs were cost-saving from all perspectives, compared to a base-case scenario accounting for voluntary industry reformulation (Table). At 10 years, the volume tax would prevent 0.24 M CVD events, 0.11 M CVD deaths, and 0.03 M diabetes cases, gain 0.22 M QALYs, generate $35.18bn tax revenue, and save $14.45bn in formal healthcare costs. Corresponding values for the tiered tax were 0.46 M, 0.22 M, 0.06 M, 0.42 M, $54.99bn and $27.88bn; and for the sugar content tax, 0.37 M, 0.16 M, 0.05 M, 0.27 M, $19.97bn and $20.54bn. Projected benefits increased over a lifetime, and economic benefits were less from health and societal perspectives, excluding tax revenue. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing SSB taxes would generate substantial health gains and cost-savings for the US population. Taxing SSBs based on a tiered tax, followed by grams of sugar content, would be a more effective strategy than a volume tax to generate health and economic benefits. FUNDING SOURCES: NIH, NHLBI. SUPPORTING TABLES, IMAGES AND/OR GRAPHS

OBJECTIVES: Excess caloric intake is linked to weight gain, obesity and related diseases including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Obesity incidence has been on the rise, with almost 2 of 3 people being overweight or obese in the US. In 2018, the US federal government passed a law mandating the labeling of calories on all menu items across chain restaurants, as a strategy to support informed consumer choice and reduce caloric intake. Yet, potential health and economic impacts of this policy remain unclear. METHODS: We used a validated microsimulation model (CVD-PREDICT) to estimate reductions in CVD events, diabetes cases, gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of two policy scenarios: (1) implementation of the federal menu calorie labelling (menu calorie label), and (2) further accounting for corresponding industry reformulation (menu calorie label + reformulation). The model utilized nationally representative demographic and dietary data from NHANES 2009–2016; policy effects on consumer intake and BMI-disease effects from published meta-analyses; and policy effects on industry reformulation, policy costs (policy administration, industry compliance and reformulation) and health-related costs (formal and informal healthcare costs, productivity costs) from established sources. We conservatively modeled change in calories to change in weight using an established dynamic weight-change model. Findings were evaluated over 10 years and lifetime from a healthcare and societal perspective. Costs were inflated to constant 2018 USD, and costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. We performed probabilistic analyses and a range of one-way sensitivity and subgroup analyses to assess the robustness of our findings. RESULTS: Sample statistics were shown (Table). American adults (35+) consume ∼21% calorie from restaurants (Figure) that would be reduced by 2% due to this law at the population level. Government administration costs were estimated at 11.6$M, industry compliance costs at 652$M, and industry reformulation costs at 9.2$B. Findings for all other analyses will be presented at the meeting. CONCLUSIONS: These findings will provide much needed evidence on the health and economic impacts of the US menu calorie labeling law. FUNDING SOURCES: NIH, AHA. SUPPORTING TABLES, IMAGES AND/OR GRAPHS

Cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing has been incorporated into El Salvador's national guidelines. The feasibility of home-based HPV self-collection among women who do not attend screening at the clinic (i.e., non-attenders) has been demonstrated, but cost-effectiveness has not been evaluated. Using cost and compliance data from El Salvador, we informed a mathematical microsimulation model of HPV infection and cervical carcinogenesis to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis from the societal perspective. We estimated the reduction in cervical cancer risk, lifetime cost per woman (2017 US$), life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, 2017 US$ per year of life saved [YLS]) of a program with home-based self-collection of HPV (facilitated by health promoters) for the 18% of women reluctant to screen at the clinic. The model was calibrated to epidemiologic data from El Salvador. We evaluated health and economic outcomes of the self-collection intervention for women aged 30 to 59 years, alone and in concert with clinic-based HPV provider-collection. Home-based self-collection of HPV was projected to reduce population cervical cancer risk by 14% and cost $1210 per YLS compared to no screening. An integrated program reaching 99% coverage with both provider- and home-based self-collection of HPV reduced cancer risk by 74% (compared to no screening), and cost $1210 per YLS compared to provider-collection alone. Self-collection facilitated by health promoters is a cost-effective strategy for increasing screening uptake in El Salvador.

Background: The last two decades have seen substantial expansion of childhood vaccination programmes in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Here we quantify the health impact of these programmes by estimating the deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted by vaccination against ten pathogens in 98 LMICs between 2000 and 2030. Methods: Independent research groups provided model-based disease burden estimates under a range of vaccination coverage scenarios for ten pathogens: hepatitis B (HepB), Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), human papillomavirus (HPV), Japanese encephalitis (JE), measles, Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A (MenA), Streptococcus pneumoniae, rotavirus, rubella, yellow fever. Using standardized demographic data and vaccine coverage estimates for routine and supplementary immunization activities, the impact of vaccination programmes on deaths and DALYs was determined by comparing model estimates from the no vaccination counterfactual scenario with those from a default coverage scenario. We present results in two forms: deaths/DALYs averted in a particular calendar year, and in a particular annual birth cohort. Findings: We estimate that vaccination will have averted 69 (2⋅5-97⋅5% quantile range 52-88) million deaths between 2000 and 2030 across the 98 countries and ten pathogens considered, 35 (29-45) million of these between 2000-2018. From 2000-2018, this represents a 44% (36-57%) reduction in deaths due to the ten pathogens relative to the no vaccination counterfactual. Most (96% (93-97%)) of this impact is in under-five age mortality, notably from measles. Over the lifetime of birth cohorts born between 2000 and 2030, we predict that 122 (96-147) million deaths will be averted by vaccination, of which 58 (39-75) and 38 (26-52) million are due to measles and Hepatitis B vaccination, respectively. We estimate that recent increases in vaccine coverage and introductions of additional vaccines will result in a 72% (61-79%) reduction in lifetime mortality caused by these 10 pathogens in the 2018 birth cohort. Interpretation: Increases in vaccine coverage and the introduction of new vaccines into LMICs over the last two decades have had a major impact in reducing mortality. These public health gains are predicted to increase in coming decades if progress in increasing coverage is sustained. Funding Statement: VIMC is jointly funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Funding from Gavi is channelled via VIMC to the Consortium's modelling groups (VIMCfunded institutions represented in this paper: Imperial College London, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Public Health England, Johns Hopkins University, The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, Kaiser Permanente Washington, University of Cambridge, University of Notre Dame, Harvard University, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers). Funding from BMGF was used for salaries of the Consortium secretariat (authors represented here: Professor Hallett, Professor Grassly, Dr Cucunuba, Professor Jit, Dr Xiang Li, Dr Mukandavire, Ms Woodruff, Professor Ferguson, Dr Garske); and channelled via VIMC for travel and subsistence costs of all Consortium members (all authors). In addition, the following funding declarations are noted: Dr Eilertson and Dr Ferrari report grants from BMGF, outside the submitted work. Mr Gamkrelidze, Dr Razavi and Mr Razavi-Shearer report grants from John C Martin Foundation during the conduct of the study; and grants from AbbVie, Gilead, Intercept, Pan American Health Organization, and Association of State and Territorial Health Officials outside the submitted work; all three authors are employees of the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation which had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, interpretation of data, or preparation of the manuscript. Dr Gaythorpe reports personal fees from Wellcome Genome Campus advanced courses and scientific conferences, and grants from MRC during the conduct of the study. Dr Hallett reports grants and personal fees from WHO, Pharos, Avenhir Health, outside the submitted work. Dr Nayagam reports Consultancy work for WHO and Pharos Global Health Advisors, and acknowledges support from NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). Dr Trotter reports personal fees from GSK, outside the submitted work. Professor Hallett, Dr Nayagam, Dr Garske, Dr Gaythorpe, Dr Hinsley, Dr Jean, and Professor Ferguson acknowledge joint Centre funding from the UK Medical Research Council and Department for International Development (MR/R015600/1). Development of LSHTM's models for HPV, measles, PCV, Hib and rotavirus was funded by WHO, Gavi and BMGF under several grants, past and current. BMGF supported the development and maintenance of the Lives Saved Tool. Dr Resch and Mr Sy acknowledge other funding from BMGF not related to this work and with no influence on the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. Declaration of Interests: This publication is authored by members of the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium (VIMC, www.vaccineimpact.org). VIMC is jointly funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Consortium or its funders. The funders were given the opportunity to review this paper prior to publication, but the final decision on the content of the publication was taken by the authors. Consortium members received funding from Gavi and BMGF via VIMC during the course of the study (see funding statement above). In addition, the following potential conflicts of interest were disclosed: Dr Eilertson and Dr Ferrari report grants from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, outside the submitted work. Dr Gamkrelidze, Dr Razavi and Dr Razavi-Shearer report grants from John C Martin Foundation during the conduct of the study; and grants from AbbVie, Gilead, Intercept, Pan American Health Organization, and Association of State and Territorial Health Officials outside the submitted work. Dr Gaythorpe reports personal fees from Wellcome Genome Campus advanced courses and scientific conferences, and grants from MRC during the conduct of the study. Dr Hallett reports grants and personal fees from WHO, Pharos, Avenhir Health, outside the submitted work. Dr Nayagam reports Consultancy work for WHO and Pharos Global Health Advisors. Dr Trotter reports personal fees from GSK, outside the submitted work. Professor Ferguson reports grants from UK Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study, and grants from NIH NIGMS, UK National Institute of Health Research, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr Garske reports grants from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Ethical Approval Statement: Not required.

OBJECTIVES: Financial incentives and disincentives are effective tools for improving food purchases and health. Healthy food subsidies have only been considered for vulnerable populations and can be costly, while sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes can be considered financially regressive and punitive. The potential joint health and economic impacts of combining these approaches at a national scale have not been evaluated. METHODS: A validated microsimulation model, CVD PREDICT, was used to estimate reductions in CVD events, diabetes cases, gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of a national U.S. fruit and vegetable subsidy fully or partly financed by SSB excise tax revenue ($0.01/tsp of added sugar). For the fully financed subsidy, cost could not exceed net tax revenue; while for the partly financed subsidy, costs were greater and ensured that taxes paid did not exceed subsidies received in either low or high income subgroups. Model inputs included national demographic and dietary data from NHANES 2009–2014; policy effects on consumer intakes, industry responses, and diet-disease effects from meta-analyses; and policy costs (tax and subsidy implementation, subsidy costs, industry reformulation), and health-related costs (formal/informal healthcare costs, productivity costs) from published sources. Findings were evaluated over 10 years and lifetime, with costs (in constant 2019 USD) and QALYs discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Both the fully and partly financed joint intervention was estimated to be cost-saving, compared to a base-case scenario accounting for gradual voluntary SSB industry reformulation. At 10 years, the fully financed intervention would prevent approximately 1.11M CVD events, 0.14M CVD deaths, and 0.34M diabetes cases, gain 0.87M QALYs, generate 1.49B net revenue, and save $56B in formal healthcare costs. Corresponding values for the partially financed intervention were 1.42M, 0.17M, 0.34M, 1.18M, −13.9B, and $65B. Estimated benefits and cost-savings were approximately 4–15 fold higher over a lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: A joint national strategy combining revenue from an SSB excise tax to fully or partially finance fruit and vegetable subsidies could generate substantial health gains and cost-savings for the US, while minimizing government spending. FUNDING SOURCES: NIH, NHLBI.

Background The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides approximately US$70 billion annually to support food purchases by low-income households, supporting approximately 1 in 7 Americans. In the 2018 Farm Bill, potential SNAP revisions to improve diets and health could include financial incentives, disincentives, or restrictions for certain foods. However, the overall and comparative impacts on health outcomes and costs are not established. We aimed to estimate the health impact, program and healthcare costs, and cost-effectiveness of food incentives, disincentives, or restrictions in SNAP. Methods and findings We used a validated microsimulation model (CVD-PREDICT), populated with national data on adult SNAP participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2009–2014, policy effects from SNAP pilots and food pricing meta-analyses, diet–disease effects from meta-analyses, and policy, food, and healthcare costs from published literature to estimate the overall and comparative impacts of 3 dietary policy interventions: (1) a 30% incentive for fruits and vegetables (F&V), (2) a 30% F&V incentive with a restriction of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), and (3) a broader incentive/disincentive program for multiple foods that also preserves choice (SNAP-plus), combining 30% incentives for F&V, nuts, whole grains, fish, and plant-based oils and 30% disincentives for SSBs, junk food, and processed meats. Among approximately 14.5 million adults on SNAP at baseline with mean age 52 years, our simulation estimates that the F&V incentive over 5 years would prevent 38,782 cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, gain 18,928 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and save $1.21 billion in healthcare costs. Adding SSB restriction increased gains to 93,933 CVD events prevented, 45,864 QALYs gained, and $4.33 billion saved. For SNAP-plus, corresponding gains were 116,875 CVD events prevented, 56,056 QALYs gained, and $5.28 billion saved. Over a lifetime, the F&V incentive would prevent approximately 303,900 CVD events, gain 649,000 QALYs, and save $6.77 billion in healthcare costs. Adding SSB restriction increased gains to approximately 797,900 CVD events prevented, 2.11 million QALYs gained, and $39.16 billion in healthcare costs saved. For SNAP-plus, corresponding gains were approximately 940,000 CVD events prevented, 2.47 million QALYs gained, and $41.93 billion saved. From a societal perspective (including programmatic costs but excluding food subsidy costs as an intra-societal transfer), all 3 scenarios were cost-saving. From a government affordability perspective (i.e., incorporating food subsidy costs, including for children and young adults for whom no health gains were modeled), the F&V incentive was of low cost-effectiveness at 5 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $548,053/QALY) but achieved cost-effectiveness ($66,525/QALY) over a lifetime. Adding SSB restriction, the intervention was cost-effective at 10 years ($68,857/QALY) and very cost-effective at 20 years ($26,435/QALY) and over a lifetime ($5,216/QALY). The combined incentive/disincentive program produced the largest health gains and reduced both healthcare and food costs, with net cost-savings of $10.16 billion at 5 years and $63.33 billion over a lifetime. Results were consistent in probabilistic sensitivity analyses: for example, from a societal perspective, 1,000 of 1,000 iterations (100%) were cost-saving for all 3 interventions. Due to the nature of simulation studies, the findings cannot prove the health and cost impacts of national SNAP interventions. Conclusions Leveraging healthier eating through SNAP could generate substantial health benefits and be cost-effective or cost-saving. A combined food incentive/disincentive program appears most effective and may be most attractive to policy-makers., In a microsimulation study Dariush Mozaffarian and colleagues model 3 different potential food choice interventions for the benefits of health outcomes and costs-savings., Author summary Why was this study done? The US Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides approximately $70 billion/year for food purchases for low-income households, supporting about 1 in 7 Americans. Diet-related diseases and costs disproportionately harm low-income individuals, making SNAP a major potential lever to improve food choices, reduce healthcare costs, and improve disparities. However, the overall and comparative impacts and cost-effectiveness of food incentives, disincentives, and restrictions in SNAP for health outcomes and costs are not established. What did the researchers do and find? Using nationally representative data and a validated microsimulation model, we evaluated 3 potential interventions within SNAP, including (1) a 30% subsidy for purchases of fruits and vegetables (F&V) (F&V incentive), (2) a F&V incentive with restriction of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) (F&V incentive/SSB restriction), and (3) a broader incentive/disincentive program that preserves choice (SNAP-plus), combining a 30% subsidy for purchases of F&V, nuts, whole grains, fish, and plant-based oils and a 30% disincentive for purchases of SSBs, junk food, and processed meats. Over a lifetime, we found that the F&V incentive, F&V incentive/SSB restriction, and SNAP-plus programs would prevent respectively about 304,000, 798,000, and 940,000 CVD events and −1,000, 171,000, and 147,000 cases of diabetes, with respective healthcare cost-savings of about $7 billion, $39 billion, and $429 billion. From a societal perspective, all interventions were cost-saving. From a government affordability perspective (incorporating food subsidy costs for all 42 million participants in SNAP, including children), the F&V incentive was cost-effective (lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] approximately $66,500 per quality-adjusted life year), the F&V incentive/SSB restriction policy was very cost-effective (ICER approximately $5,200), and the SNAP-plus program was cost-saving (saving $63 billion). What do these findings mean? Leveraging healthier eating through SNAP could generate substantial health benefits among low-income Americans and be cost-effective or cost-saving. A combined food incentive/disincentive program produced the largest modeled gains in health and healthcare savings. These findings support the need to test these SNAP interventions in state pilot programs.

OBJECTIVES:Men who have sex with men who are living with HIV are at highest risk for anal cancer. Our objective was to use empirical data to develop a comprehensive disease simulation model that reflects the most current understanding of anal carcinogenesis, which is uniquely positioned to evaluate future anal cancer screening strategies and provide insight on the unobservable course of the disease. SETTING:North America. METHODS:The individual-based simulation model was calibrated leveraging primary data from empirical studies, such as a longitudinal HIV-positive men who have sex with men cohort study [Human Immunodeficiency and Papilloma Virus Research Group (HIPVIRG); n = 247] and the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design [(NA-ACCORD); n = 13,146]. We used the model to infer unobservable progression probabilities from high-grade precancer to invasive anal cancer by CD4 nadir and human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype. RESULTS:The calibrated model had good correspondence to data on genotype- and age-specific HPV prevalence; genotype frequency in precancer and cancer; and age- and nadir CD4-specific cancer incidence. The model-projected progression probabilities differed substantially by HPV genotype and nadir CD4 status. For example, among individuals with CD4 nadir

Women with HIV face an increased risk of human papillomavirus (HPV) acquisition and persistence, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, and invasive cervical cancer. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of different cervical cancer screening strategies among women with HIV in South Africa.We modified a mathematical model of HPV infection and cervical disease to reflect coinfection with HIV. The model was calibrated to epidemiologic data from HIV-infected women in South Africa. Clinical and economic data were drawn from in-country data sources. The model was used to project reductions in the lifetime risk of cervical cancer and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of Pap and HPV DNA screening and management algorithms beginning at HIV diagnosis, at 1-, 2-, or 3-year intervals. Strategies with an ICER below South Africa's 2016 per capita gross domestic product (US$5270) were considered "cost-effective."HPV testing followed by treatment (test-and-treat) at 2-year intervals was the most effective strategy that was also cost-effective, reducing lifetime cancer risk by 56.6% with an ICER of US$3010 per year of life saved. Other cost-effective strategies included Pap (referral threshold: HSIL+) at 1-, 2-, and 3-year intervals, and HPV test-and-treat at 3-year intervals. Pap (ASCUS+), HPV testing with 16/18 genotyping, and HPV testing with Pap or visual triage of HPV-positive women were less effective and more costly than alternatives.Considering per capita gross domestic product as the benchmark for cost-effectiveness, HPV test-and-treat is optimal in South Africa. At lower cost-effectiveness benchmarks, Pap (HSIL+) would be optimal.