Harrell W Chesson1, Elissa Meites2, Donatus U Ekwueme3, Mona Saraiya3, Lauri E Markowitz2. 1. Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: HChesson@cdc.gov. 2. Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the United States, routine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is recommended for females and males at age 11 or 12 years; the series can be started at age 9 years. Vaccination is also recommended for females through age 26 years and males through age 21 years. The objective of this study was to assess the health impact and cost-effectiveness of harmonizing female and male vaccination recommendations by increasing the upper recommended catch-up age of HPV vaccination for males from age 21 to age 26 years. METHODS: We updated a published model of the health impact and cost-effectiveness of 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine (9vHPV). We examined the cost-effectiveness of (1) 9vHPV for females aged 12 through 26 years and males aged 12 through 21 years, and (2) an expanded program including males through age 26 years. RESULTS: Compared to no vaccination, providing 9vHPV for females aged 12 through 26 years and males aged 12 through 21 years cost an estimated $16,600 (in 2016 U.S. dollars) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The estimated cost per QALY gained by expanding male vaccination through age 26 years was $228,800 and ranged from $137,900 to $367,300 in multi-way sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness ratios we estimated are not so favorable as to make a strong economic case for recommending expanding male vaccination, yet are not so unfavorable as to preclude consideration of expanding male vaccination. The wide range of plausible results we obtained may underestimate the true degree of uncertainty, due to model limitations. For example, the cost per QALY might be less than our lower bound estimate of $137,900 had our model allowed for vaccine protection against re-infection. Models that specifically incorporate men who have sex with men (MSM) are needed to provide a more comprehensive assessment of male HPV vaccination strategies. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
INTRODUCTION: In the United States, routine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is recommended for females and males at age 11 or 12 years; the series can be started at age 9 years. Vaccination is also recommended for females through age 26 years and males through age 21 years. The objective of this study was to assess the health impact and cost-effectiveness of harmonizing female and male vaccination recommendations by increasing the upper recommended catch-up age of HPV vaccination for males from age 21 to age 26 years. METHODS: We updated a published model of the health impact and cost-effectiveness of 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine (9vHPV). We examined the cost-effectiveness of (1) 9vHPV for females aged 12 through 26 years and males aged 12 through 21 years, and (2) an expanded program including males through age 26 years. RESULTS: Compared to no vaccination, providing 9vHPV for females aged 12 through 26 years and males aged 12 through 21 years cost an estimated $16,600 (in 2016 U.S. dollars) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The estimated cost per QALY gained by expanding male vaccination through age 26 years was $228,800 and ranged from $137,900 to $367,300 in multi-way sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness ratios we estimated are not so favorable as to make a strong economic case for recommending expanding male vaccination, yet are not so unfavorable as to preclude consideration of expanding male vaccination. The wide range of plausible results we obtained may underestimate the true degree of uncertainty, due to model limitations. For example, the cost per QALY might be less than our lower bound estimate of $137,900 had our model allowed for vaccine protection against re-infection. Models that specifically incorporate men who have sex with men (MSM) are needed to provide a more comprehensive assessment of male HPV vaccination strategies. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Authors: Jean-François Laprise; Harrell W Chesson; Lauri E Markowitz; Mélanie Drolet; Dave Martin; Élodie Bénard; Marc Brisson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jane J Kim; Kate T Simms; James Killen; Megan A Smith; Emily A Burger; Stephen Sy; Catherine Regan; Karen Canfell Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 11.613