Jane J Kim1, Jesse Ortendahl, Sue J Goldie. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women older than 30 years are the main beneficiaries of improved cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing. The role of vaccination against HPV types 16 and 18, which is recommended routinely for preadolescent girls, is unclear in this age group. OBJECTIVE: To assess the health and economic outcomes of HPV vaccination in older U.S. women. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis with an empirically calibrated model. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. women aged 35 to 45 years. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: HPV vaccination added to screening strategies that differ by test (cytology or HPV DNA testing), frequency, and start age versus screening alone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2006 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: In the context of annual or biennial screening, HPV vaccination of women aged 35 to 45 years ranged from $116 950 to $272 350 per QALY for cytology with HPV DNA testing for triage of equivocal results and from $193 690 to $381 590 per QALY for combined cytology and HPV DNA testing, depending on age and screening frequency. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The probability of HPV vaccination being cost-effective for women aged 35 to 45 years was 0% with annual or biennial screening and less than 5% with triennial screening, at thresholds considered good value for money. LIMITATION: The natural history of the disease and the efficacy of the vaccine in older women are uncertain. CONCLUSION: Given currently available information, the effectiveness of HPV vaccination for women older than 30 years who are screened seems to be small. Compared with current screening that uses sensitive HPV DNA testing, HPV vaccination is associated with less attractive cost-effectiveness ratios in this population than those for other, well-accepted interventions in the United States.
BACKGROUND:Women older than 30 years are the main beneficiaries of improved cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing. The role of vaccination against HPV types 16 and 18, which is recommended routinely for preadolescent girls, is unclear in this age group. OBJECTIVE: To assess the health and economic outcomes of HPV vaccination in older U.S. women. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis with an empirically calibrated model. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. women aged 35 to 45 years. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: HPV vaccination added to screening strategies that differ by test (cytology or HPV DNA testing), frequency, and start age versus screening alone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2006 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: In the context of annual or biennial screening, HPV vaccination of women aged 35 to 45 years ranged from $116 950 to $272 350 per QALY for cytology with HPV DNA testing for triage of equivocal results and from $193 690 to $381 590 per QALY for combined cytology and HPV DNA testing, depending on age and screening frequency. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The probability of HPV vaccination being cost-effective for women aged 35 to 45 years was 0% with annual or biennial screening and less than 5% with triennial screening, at thresholds considered good value for money. LIMITATION: The natural history of the disease and the efficacy of the vaccine in older women are uncertain. CONCLUSION: Given currently available information, the effectiveness of HPV vaccination for women older than 30 years who are screened seems to be small. Compared with current screening that uses sensitive HPV DNA testing, HPV vaccination is associated with less attractive cost-effectiveness ratios in this population than those for other, well-accepted interventions in the United States.
Authors: L A Wallace; D Young; A Brown; J C Cameron; S Ahmed; R Duff; W F Carman; N R E Kitchin; J S Nguyen-Van-Tam; D J Goldberg Journal: Vaccine Date: 2005-07-27 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Suzanne M Garland; Mauricio Hernandez-Avila; Cosette M Wheeler; Gonzalo Perez; Diane M Harper; Sepp Leodolter; Grace W K Tang; Daron G Ferris; Marc Steben; Janine Bryan; Frank J Taddeo; Radha Railkar; Mark T Esser; Heather L Sings; Micki Nelson; John Boslego; Carlos Sattler; Eliav Barr; Laura A Koutsky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-05-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas C Wright; Mark Schiffman; Diane Solomon; J Thomas Cox; Francisco Garcia; Sue Goldie; Kenneth Hatch; Kenneth L Noller; Nancy Roach; Carolyn Runowicz; Debbie Saslow Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Natasha K Stout; Joshua A Salomon; Karen M Kuntz; Sue J Goldie Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-02-26 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jane J Kim; Karen M Kuntz; Natasha K Stout; Salaheddin Mahmud; Luisa L Villa; Eduardo L Franco; Sue J Goldie Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-05-25 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Bethany L Morris; Callie A Scott; Timothy J Wilkin; Paul E Sax; Roy M Gulick; Kenneth A Freedberg; Bruce R Schackman Journal: HIV Clin Trials Date: 2012 Jan-Feb
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Sholom Wacholder; Walter Kinney; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Cosette M Wheeler; William C Hunt; Jack Cuzick; Erika Langsfeld; Amanda Pearse; George D Montoya; Michael Robertson; Catherine A Shearman; Philip E Castle Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Joseph Lipscomb; K Robin Yabroff; Mark C Hornbrook; Anna Gigli; Silvia Francisci; Murray Krahn; Gemma Gatta; Annalisa Trama; Debra P Ritzwoller; Isabelle Durand-Zaleski; Ramzi Salloum; Neetu Chawla; Catia Angiolini; Emanuele Crocetti; Francesco Giusti; Stefano Guzzinati; Maura Mezzetti; Guido Miccinesi; Angela Mariotto Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2013
Authors: Andrew J Leidner; Neil Murthy; Harrell W Chesson; Matthew Biggerstaff; Charles Stoecker; Aaron M Harris; Anna Acosta; Kathleen Dooling; Carolyn B Bridges Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Rachel L Winer; James P Hughes; Qinghua Feng; Long Fu Xi; Shu-Kuang Lee; Sandra F O'Reilly; Nancy B Kiviat; Laura A Koutsky Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: F Xavier Bosch; Claudia Robles; Mireia Díaz; Marc Arbyn; Iacopo Baussano; Christine Clavel; Guglielmo Ronco; Joakim Dillner; Matti Lehtinen; Karl-Ulrich Petry; Mario Poljak; Susanne K Kjaer; Chris J L M Meijer; Suzanne M Garland; Jorge Salmerón; Xavier Castellsagué; Laia Bruni; Silvia de Sanjosé; Jack Cuzick Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 66.675