Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model
Identifieur interne : 001148 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001147; suivant : 001149Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model
Auteurs : Mark Jit ; Ruth Chapman ; Owain Hughes ; Yoon Hong ChoiSource :
- BMJ [ 0959-8138 ] ; 2011.
Abstract
Objectives To compare the effect and cost effectiveness of bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, taking into account differences in licensure indications, protection against non-vaccine type disease, protection against disease related to HPV types 6 and 11, and reported long term immunogenicity. Design A model of HPV transmission and disease previously used to inform UK vaccination policy, updated with recent evidence and expanded to include scenarios where the two vaccines differ in duration of protection, cross protection, and end points prevented. Setting United Kingdom. Population Males and females aged 12–75 years. Main outcome measure Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for both vaccines and additional cost per dose for the quadrivalent vaccine to be equally cost effective as the bivalent vaccine. Results The bivalent vaccine needs to be cheaper than the quadrivalent vaccine to be equally cost effective, mainly because of its lack of protection against anogenital warts. The price difference per dose ranges from a median of £19 (interquartile range £12–£27) to £35 (£27–£44) across scenarios about vaccine duration, cross protection, and end points prevented (assuming one quality adjusted life year (QALY) is valued at £30 000 and both vaccines can prevent all types of HPV related cancers). Conclusions The quadrivalent vaccine may have an advantage over the bivalent vaccine in reducing healthcare costs and QALYs lost. The bivalent vaccine may have an advantage in preventing death due to cancer. However, considerable uncertainty remains about the differential benefit of the two vaccines.
Url:
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d5775
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8ALe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model</title><author><name sortKey="Jit, Mark" sort="Jit, Mark" uniqKey="Jit M" first="Mark" last="Jit">Mark Jit</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: mark.jit@hpa.org.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Chapman, Ruth" sort="Chapman, Ruth" uniqKey="Chapman R" first="Ruth" last="Chapman">Ruth Chapman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hughes, Owain" sort="Hughes, Owain" uniqKey="Hughes O" first="Owain" last="Hughes">Owain Hughes</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Institute of Child Health, London WC1N 1EH</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Choi, Yoon Hong" sort="Choi, Yoon Hong" uniqKey="Choi Y" first="Yoon Hong" last="Choi">Yoon Hong Choi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A</idno><date when="2011" year="2011">2011</date><idno type="doi">10.1136/bmj.d5775</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001148</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model</title><author><name sortKey="Jit, Mark" sort="Jit, Mark" uniqKey="Jit M" first="Mark" last="Jit">Mark Jit</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: mark.jit@hpa.org.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Chapman, Ruth" sort="Chapman, Ruth" uniqKey="Chapman R" first="Ruth" last="Chapman">Ruth Chapman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hughes, Owain" sort="Hughes, Owain" uniqKey="Hughes O" first="Owain" last="Hughes">Owain Hughes</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Institute of Child Health, London WC1N 1EH</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Choi, Yoon Hong" sort="Choi, Yoon Hong" uniqKey="Choi Y" first="Yoon Hong" last="Choi">Yoon Hong Choi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">BMJ</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">BMJ</title><idno type="ISSN">0959-8138</idno><idno type="eISSN">1468-5833</idno><imprint><publisher>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><date type="published" when="2011">2011</date><biblScope unit="volume">343</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0959-8138</idno></series><idno type="istex">EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1136/bmj.d5775</idno><idno type="href">bmj-343-bmj-d5775.pdf</idno><idno type="ArticleID">jitm871020</idno><idno type="local">bmj;343/sep27_1/d5775</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0959-8138</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Objectives To compare the effect and cost effectiveness of bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, taking into account differences in licensure indications, protection against non-vaccine type disease, protection against disease related to HPV types 6 and 11, and reported long term immunogenicity. Design A model of HPV transmission and disease previously used to inform UK vaccination policy, updated with recent evidence and expanded to include scenarios where the two vaccines differ in duration of protection, cross protection, and end points prevented. Setting United Kingdom. Population Males and females aged 12–75 years. Main outcome measure Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for both vaccines and additional cost per dose for the quadrivalent vaccine to be equally cost effective as the bivalent vaccine. Results The bivalent vaccine needs to be cheaper than the quadrivalent vaccine to be equally cost effective, mainly because of its lack of protection against anogenital warts. The price difference per dose ranges from a median of £19 (interquartile range £12–£27) to £35 (£27–£44) across scenarios about vaccine duration, cross protection, and end points prevented (assuming one quality adjusted life year (QALY) is valued at £30 000 and both vaccines can prevent all types of HPV related cancers). Conclusions The quadrivalent vaccine may have an advantage over the bivalent vaccine in reducing healthcare costs and QALYs lost. The bivalent vaccine may have an advantage in preventing death due to cancer. However, considerable uncertainty remains about the differential benefit of the two vaccines.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>bmj</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Mark Jit</name><affiliations><json:string>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</json:string><json:string>E-mail: mark.jit@hpa.org.uk</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Ruth Chapman</name><affiliations><json:string>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Owain Hughes</name><affiliations><json:string>Institute of Child Health, London WC1N 1EH</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Yoon Hong Choi</name><affiliations><json:string>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>jitm871020</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Objectives To compare the effect and cost effectiveness of bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, taking into account differences in licensure indications, protection against non-vaccine type disease, protection against disease related to HPV types 6 and 11, and reported long term immunogenicity. Design A model of HPV transmission and disease previously used to inform UK vaccination policy, updated with recent evidence and expanded to include scenarios where the two vaccines differ in duration of protection, cross protection, and end points prevented. Setting United Kingdom. Population Males and females aged 12–75 years. Main outcome measure Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for both vaccines and additional cost per dose for the quadrivalent vaccine to be equally cost effective as the bivalent vaccine. Results The bivalent vaccine needs to be cheaper than the quadrivalent vaccine to be equally cost effective, mainly because of its lack of protection against anogenital warts. The price difference per dose ranges from a median of £19 (interquartile range £12–£27) to £35 (£27–£44) across scenarios about vaccine duration, cross protection, and end points prevented (assuming one quality adjusted life year (QALY) is valued at £30 000 and both vaccines can prevent all types of HPV related cancers). Conclusions The quadrivalent vaccine may have an advantage over the bivalent vaccine in reducing healthcare costs and QALYs lost. The bivalent vaccine may have an advantage in preventing death due to cancer. However, considerable uncertainty remains about the differential benefit of the two vaccines.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.392</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 841.89 pts (A4)</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><keywordCount>0</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1645</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>9253</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>59237</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>15</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>241</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>343</volume><publisherId><json:string>bmj</json:string></publisherId><issn><json:string>0959-8138</json:string></issn><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1468-5833</json:string></eissn><title>BMJ</title></host><publicationDate>2011</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2011</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1136/bmj.d5775</json:string></doi><id>EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A</id><score>0.23568535</score><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><availability status="free"><p>Open Access</p></availability><date>2011</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model</title><author xml:id="author-1" corresp="yes"><persName><forename type="first">Mark</forename><surname>Jit</surname></persName><email>mark.jit@hpa.org.uk</email><note type="biography">mathematical modeller</note><affiliation>mathematical modeller</affiliation><affiliation>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Ruth</forename><surname>Chapman</surname></persName><note type="biography">mathematical modeller</note><affiliation>mathematical modeller</affiliation><affiliation>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">Owain</forename><surname>Hughes</surname></persName><note type="biography">clinical research fellow</note><affiliation>clinical research fellow</affiliation><affiliation>Institute of Child Health, London WC1N 1EH</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-4"><persName><forename type="first">Yoon Hong</forename><surname>Choi</surname></persName><note type="biography">mathematical modeller</note><affiliation>mathematical modeller</affiliation><affiliation>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">BMJ</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">BMJ</title><idno type="pISSN">0959-8138</idno><idno type="eISSN">1468-5833</idno><imprint><publisher>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><date type="published" when="2011"></date><biblScope unit="volume">343</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1136/bmj.d5775</idno><idno type="href">bmj-343-bmj-d5775.pdf</idno><idno type="ArticleID">jitm871020</idno><idno type="local">bmj;343/sep27_1/d5775</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2011</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>Objectives To compare the effect and cost effectiveness of bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, taking into account differences in licensure indications, protection against non-vaccine type disease, protection against disease related to HPV types 6 and 11, and reported long term immunogenicity. Design A model of HPV transmission and disease previously used to inform UK vaccination policy, updated with recent evidence and expanded to include scenarios where the two vaccines differ in duration of protection, cross protection, and end points prevented. Setting United Kingdom. Population Males and females aged 12–75 years. Main outcome measure Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for both vaccines and additional cost per dose for the quadrivalent vaccine to be equally cost effective as the bivalent vaccine. Results The bivalent vaccine needs to be cheaper than the quadrivalent vaccine to be equally cost effective, mainly because of its lack of protection against anogenital warts. The price difference per dose ranges from a median of £19 (interquartile range £12–£27) to £35 (£27–£44) across scenarios about vaccine duration, cross protection, and end points prevented (assuming one quality adjusted life year (QALY) is valued at £30 000 and both vaccines can prevent all types of HPV related cancers). Conclusions The quadrivalent vaccine may have an advantage over the bivalent vaccine in reducing healthcare costs and QALYs lost. The bivalent vaccine may have an advantage in preventing death due to cancer. However, considerable uncertainty remains about the differential benefit of the two vaccines.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2011">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2016-10-4">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus bmj" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="archivearticle.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">bmj</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">BMJ</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">bmj</journal-id><journal-title>BMJ</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">BMJ</abbrev-journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">0959-8138</issn><issn pub-type="epub">1468-5833</issn><publisher><publisher-name>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">jitm871020</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1136/bmj.d5775</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="other">bmj;343/sep27_1/d5775</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="other">bmj;bmj.d5775</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="other">sep27_1</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="other">bmj.d5775</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="other">bmj.d5775</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name><surname>Jit</surname><given-names>Mark</given-names></name><role>mathematical modeller</role><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no"><name><surname>Chapman</surname><given-names>Ruth</given-names></name><role>mathematical modeller</role><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no"><name><surname>Hughes</surname><given-names>Owain</given-names></name><role>clinical research fellow</role><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no"><name><surname>Choi</surname><given-names>Yoon Hong</given-names></name><role>mathematical modeller</role><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref></contrib><aff id="aff1"><label>1</label>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</aff><aff id="aff2"><label>2</label>Institute of Child Health, London WC1N 1EH</aff></contrib-group><author-notes><corresp>Correspondence to: M Jit <email>mark.jit@hpa.org.uk</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2011</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub-original"><year>2011</year></pub-date><volume>343</volume><volume-id pub-id-type="other">343</volume-id><volume-id pub-id-type="other">343</volume-id><elocation-id>d5775</elocation-id><history><date date-type="accepted"><day>26</day><month>August</month><year>2011</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>© Jit et al 2011</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2011</copyright-year><copyright-holder>Jit et al</copyright-holder><license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/"><p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: <ext-link xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/" ext-link-type="uri">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/</ext-link> and <ext-link xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode" ext-link-type="uri">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode</ext-link>.</p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:role="full-text" xlink:href="bmj-343-bmj-d5775.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><p><bold>Objectives</bold> To compare the effect and cost effectiveness of bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, taking into account differences in licensure indications, protection against non-vaccine type disease, protection against disease related to HPV types 6 and 11, and reported long term immunogenicity.</p><p><bold>Design</bold> A model of HPV transmission and disease previously used to inform UK vaccination policy, updated with recent evidence and expanded to include scenarios where the two vaccines differ in duration of protection, cross protection, and end points prevented. </p><p><bold>Setting</bold> United Kingdom.</p><p><bold>Population</bold> Males and females aged 12–75 years.</p><p><bold>Main outcome measure</bold> Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for both vaccines and additional cost per dose for the quadrivalent vaccine to be equally cost effective as the bivalent vaccine.</p><p><bold>Results</bold> The bivalent vaccine needs to be cheaper than the quadrivalent vaccine to be equally cost effective, mainly because of its lack of protection against anogenital warts. The price difference per dose ranges from a median of £19 (interquartile range £12–£27) to £35 (£27–£44) across scenarios about vaccine duration, cross protection, and end points prevented (assuming one quality adjusted life year (QALY) is valued at £30 000 and both vaccines can prevent all types of HPV related cancers).</p><p><bold>Conclusions</bold> The quadrivalent vaccine may have an advantage over the bivalent vaccine in reducing healthcare costs and QALYs lost. The bivalent vaccine may have an advantage in preventing death due to cancer. However, considerable uncertainty remains about the differential benefit of the two vaccines.</p></abstract></article-meta></front></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model</title></titleInfo><name type="personal" displayLabel="corresp"><namePart type="given">Mark</namePart><namePart type="family">Jit</namePart><affiliation>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: mark.jit@hpa.org.uk</affiliation><description>mathematical modeller</description><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ruth</namePart><namePart type="family">Chapman</namePart><affiliation>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</affiliation><description>mathematical modeller</description><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Owain</namePart><namePart type="family">Hughes</namePart><affiliation>Institute of Child Health, London WC1N 1EH</affiliation><description>clinical research fellow</description><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Yoon Hong</namePart><namePart type="family">Choi</namePart><affiliation>Health Protection Agency, London NW9 6BT, UK</affiliation><description>mathematical modeller</description><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2011</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract>Objectives To compare the effect and cost effectiveness of bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, taking into account differences in licensure indications, protection against non-vaccine type disease, protection against disease related to HPV types 6 and 11, and reported long term immunogenicity. Design A model of HPV transmission and disease previously used to inform UK vaccination policy, updated with recent evidence and expanded to include scenarios where the two vaccines differ in duration of protection, cross protection, and end points prevented. Setting United Kingdom. Population Males and females aged 12–75 years. Main outcome measure Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for both vaccines and additional cost per dose for the quadrivalent vaccine to be equally cost effective as the bivalent vaccine. Results The bivalent vaccine needs to be cheaper than the quadrivalent vaccine to be equally cost effective, mainly because of its lack of protection against anogenital warts. The price difference per dose ranges from a median of £19 (interquartile range £12–£27) to £35 (£27–£44) across scenarios about vaccine duration, cross protection, and end points prevented (assuming one quality adjusted life year (QALY) is valued at £30 000 and both vaccines can prevent all types of HPV related cancers). Conclusions The quadrivalent vaccine may have an advantage over the bivalent vaccine in reducing healthcare costs and QALYs lost. The bivalent vaccine may have an advantage in preventing death due to cancer. However, considerable uncertainty remains about the differential benefit of the two vaccines.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>BMJ</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>BMJ</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0959-8138</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1468-5833</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">bmj</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">bmj</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-nlm-ta">BMJ</identifier><part><date>2011</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>343</number></detail></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1136/bmj.d5775</identifier><identifier type="href">bmj-343-bmj-d5775.pdf</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">jitm871020</identifier><identifier type="local">bmj;343/sep27_1/d5775</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="open-access">This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>BMJ</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Jit et al</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><annexes><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>image/jpeg</mimetype><extension>jpeg</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A/annexes/jpeg</uri></json:item></annexes><enrichments><json:item><type>multicat</type><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A/enrichments/multicat</uri></json:item><json:item><type>refBibs</type><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A/enrichments/refBibs</uri></json:item></enrichments><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Belgique/explor/OpenAccessBelV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001148 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001148 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Belgique
|area= OpenAccessBelV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:EB9607575BEB6ADA6746F632400F41267DC51A8A
|texte= Comparing bivalent and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccines: economic evaluation based on transmission model
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.25. |  |