Didik Setiawan1,2, Abrham Wondimu3,4, KohJun Ong5, Albert Jan van Hoek6, Maarten J Postma1,7,8. 1. Unit of PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology & -Economics (PTE2), Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, Building 3214, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Muhammadiyah Purwokerto, Purwokerto, Indonesia. 3. Unit of PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology & -Economics (PTE2), Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, Building 3214, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands. leabrham@gmail.com. 4. Department of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, The Netherlands. leabrham@gmail.com. 5. Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK. 6. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 7. Department of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Economics, Econometrics & Finance; Faculty of Economics & Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Men who have sex with men require special attention for human papillomavirus vaccination given elevated infection risks and the development of, in particular, anal cancer. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to review the cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination for both currently vaccine-eligible and non-eligible individuals, particularly the men-who-have-sex-with-men population, and synthesize the available evidence. METHODS: We systematically searched for published articles in two main databases (PubMed and EMBASE). Screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed using a validated instrument (Bias in Economic Evaluation, ECOBIAS). Methodological aspects, study results, and sensitivity analyses were extracted and synthesized to generate a consistent overview of the cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in the men-who-have-sex-with-men population. RESULTS: From 770 identified articles, four met the inclusion criteria. Across the studies, human papillomavirus vaccination showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominant to US$96,146 and US$14,000 to US$18,200 for tertiary prevention and primary prevention, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio seemed most sensitive to vaccine efficacy, vaccine costs, and the incidence of anal cancer in the selected target populations. CONCLUSION: This review presents the human papillomavirus vaccine, both as a primary and adjuvant (tertiary) vaccination, as a potentially cost-effective strategy for preventing mainly-but not limited to only-anal cancer in men-who-have-sex-with-men populations.
BACKGROUND:Men who have sex with men require special attention for human papillomavirus vaccination given elevated infection risks and the development of, in particular, anal cancer. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to review the cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination for both currently vaccine-eligible and non-eligible individuals, particularly the men-who-have-sex-with-men population, and synthesize the available evidence. METHODS: We systematically searched for published articles in two main databases (PubMed and EMBASE). Screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed using a validated instrument (Bias in Economic Evaluation, ECOBIAS). Methodological aspects, study results, and sensitivity analyses were extracted and synthesized to generate a consistent overview of the cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in the men-who-have-sex-with-men population. RESULTS: From 770 identified articles, four met the inclusion criteria. Across the studies, human papillomavirus vaccination showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominant to US$96,146 and US$14,000 to US$18,200 for tertiary prevention and primary prevention, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio seemed most sensitive to vaccine efficacy, vaccine costs, and the incidence of anal cancer in the selected target populations. CONCLUSION: This review presents the human papillomavirus vaccine, both as a primary and adjuvant (tertiary) vaccination, as a potentially cost-effective strategy for preventing mainly-but not limited to only-anal cancer in men-who-have-sex-with-men populations.
Authors: M Arbyn; C Simoens; P Van Damme; A Scharpantgen; C J L M Meijer; P Beutels Journal: Gynecol Obstet Invest Date: 2010-10-16 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Anil K Chaturvedi; Eric A Engels; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Brenda Y Hernandez; Weihong Xiao; Esther Kim; Bo Jiang; Marc T Goodman; Maria Sibug-Saber; Wendy Cozen; Lihua Liu; Charles F Lynch; Nicolas Wentzensen; Richard C Jordan; Sean Altekruse; William F Anderson; Philip S Rosenberg; Maura L Gillison Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anna R Giuliano; Alan G Nyitray; Aimée R Kreimer; Christine M Pierce Campbell; Marc T Goodman; Staci L Sudenga; Joseph Monsonego; Silvia Franceschi Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-07-26 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Alan G Nyitray; Roberto J Carvalho da Silva; Maria Luiza Baggio; Beibei Lu; Danélle Smith; Martha Abrahamsen; Mary Papenfuss; Luisa L Villa; Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce; Anna R Giuliano Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2011-01-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Sepehr N Tabrizi; Julia M L Brotherton; John M Kaldor; S Rachel Skinner; Bette Liu; Deborah Bateson; Kathleen McNamee; Maria Garefalakis; Samuel Phillips; Eleanor Cummins; Michael Malloy; Suzanne M Garland Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 25.071