Mohamed-Béchir Ben Hadj Yahia1, Anaïs Jouin-Bortolotti, Benoît Dervaux. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Health Economics and Prevention, Lille University Hospital, CHRU de Lille, Pôle S3P, Maison Régionale de la Recherche Clinique, 6, rue du Pr Laguesse, CS 70001, 59037, Lille Cedex, France, bechirbhy@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Giving the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to females has been shown to be cost-effective in most countries. The epidemiological evidence and economic burden of HPV-related diseases have gradually been shown to be gender neutral. Randomized clinical trials report high efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of the HPV vaccine in males aged 16-26 years. Some pioneering countries extended their HPV vaccination programme to include males, regardless of the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Nevertheless, decision makers need evidence provided by modelling and economic studies to justify the funding of mass vaccination. This systematic review aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of extending the HPV vaccination programme to include males living in high-income countries. METHODS: A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness analyses of HPV vaccination in males was performed. Data were extracted and analysed using a checklist adapted from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Statement. RESULTS: Seventeen studies and 12 underlying mathematical models were identified. Model filiation showed evolution in time from aggregate models (static and dynamic) to individual-based models. When considering the health outcomes HPV vaccines are licensed for, regardless of modelling approaches and assumptions, extending vaccinations to males is rarely found to be cost-effective in heterosexual populations. Cost-effectiveness ratios become more attractive when all HPV-related diseases are considered and when vaccine coverage in females is below 40%. CONCLUSION: Targeted vaccination of men who have sex with men (MSM) seems to be the best cost-effectiveness option. The feasibility of this strategy is still an open question, since early identification of this specific population remains difficult.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Giving the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to females has been shown to be cost-effective in most countries. The epidemiological evidence and economic burden of HPV-related diseases have gradually been shown to be gender neutral. Randomized clinical trials report high efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of the HPV vaccine in males aged 16-26 years. Some pioneering countries extended their HPV vaccination programme to include males, regardless of the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Nevertheless, decision makers need evidence provided by modelling and economic studies to justify the funding of mass vaccination. This systematic review aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of extending the HPV vaccination programme to include males living in high-income countries. METHODS: A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness analyses of HPV vaccination in males was performed. Data were extracted and analysed using a checklist adapted from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Statement. RESULTS: Seventeen studies and 12 underlying mathematical models were identified. Model filiation showed evolution in time from aggregate models (static and dynamic) to individual-based models. When considering the health outcomes HPV vaccines are licensed for, regardless of modelling approaches and assumptions, extending vaccinations to males is rarely found to be cost-effective in heterosexual populations. Cost-effectiveness ratios become more attractive when all HPV-related diseases are considered and when vaccine coverage in females is below 40%. CONCLUSION: Targeted vaccination of men who have sex with men (MSM) seems to be the best cost-effectiveness option. The feasibility of this strategy is still an open question, since early identification of this specific population remains difficult.
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Elmar A Joura; Anna R Giuliano; Ole-Erik Iversen; Celine Bouchard; Constance Mao; Jesper Mehlsen; Edson D Moreira; Yuen Ngan; Lone Kjeld Petersen; Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce; Punnee Pitisuttithum; Jaime Alberto Restrepo; Gavin Stuart; Linn Woelber; Yuh Cheng Yang; Jack Cuzick; Suzanne M Garland; Warner Huh; Susanne K Kjaer; Oliver M Bautista; Ivan S F Chan; Joshua Chen; Richard Gesser; Erin Moeller; Michael Ritter; Scott Vuocolo; Alain Luxembourg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hammad Ali; Basil Donovan; Handan Wand; Tim R H Read; David G Regan; Andrew E Grulich; Christopher K Fairley; Rebecca J Guy Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-04-18
Authors: Harrell W Chesson; Donatus U Ekwueme; Mona Saraiya; Meg Watson; Douglas R Lowy; Lauri E Markowitz Journal: Vaccine Date: 2012-08-04 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Elissa Meites; Pamina M Gorbach; Beau Gratzer; Gitika Panicker; Martin Steinau; Tom Collins; Adam Parrish; Cody Randel; Mark McGrath; Steven Carrasco; Janell Moore; Akbar Zaidi; Jim Braxton; Peter R Kerndt; Elizabeth R Unger; Richard A Crosby; Lauri E Markowitz Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Oliver Damm; Johannes Horn; Rafael T Mikolajczyk; Mirjam E E Kretzschmar; Andreas M Kaufmann; Yvonne Deleré; Bernhard Ultsch; Ole Wichmann; Alexander Krämer; Wolfgang Greiner Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Date: 2017-09-04