Jane J Kim1, Kate T Simms2,3, James Killen2, Megan A Smith2,3, Emily A Burger1,4, Stephen Sy1, Catherine Regan1, Karen Canfell2,3. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. 2. Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 3. School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 4. Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been licensed for use in women and men up to age 45 years in the United States. The cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination for women and men aged 30 to 45 years in the context of cervical cancer screening practice was evaluated to inform national guidelines. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We utilized 2 independent HPV microsimulation models to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of extending the upper age limit of HPV vaccination in women (from age 26 years) and men (from age 21 years) up to age 30, 35, 40, or 45 years. The models were empirically calibrated to reflect the burden of HPV and related cancers in the US population and used standardized inputs regarding historical and future vaccination uptake, vaccine efficacy, cervical cancer screening, and costs. Disease outcomes included cervical, anal, oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal, and penile cancers, as well as genital warts. Both models projected higher costs and greater health benefits as the upper age limit of HPV vaccination increased. Strategies of vaccinating females and males up to ages 30, 35, and 40 years were found to be less cost-effective than vaccinating up to age 45 years, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) greater than a commonly accepted upper threshold of $200,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. When including all HPV-related outcomes, the ICER for vaccinating up to age 45 years ranged from $315,700 to $440,600 per QALY gained. Assumptions regarding cervical screening compliance, vaccine costs, and the natural history of noncervical HPV-related cancers had major impacts on the cost-effectiveness of the vaccination strategies. Key limitations of the study were related to uncertainties in the data used to inform the models, including the timing of vaccine impact on noncervical cancers and vaccine efficacy at older ages. CONCLUSIONS: Our results from 2 independent models suggest that HPV vaccination for adult women and men aged 30 to 45 years is unlikely to represent good value for money in the US.
BACKGROUND: A nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been licensed for use in women and men up to age 45 years in the United States. The cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination for women and men aged 30 to 45 years in the context of cervical cancer screening practice was evaluated to inform national guidelines. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We utilized 2 independent HPV microsimulation models to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of extending the upper age limit of HPV vaccination in women (from age 26 years) and men (from age 21 years) up to age 30, 35, 40, or 45 years. The models were empirically calibrated to reflect the burden of HPV and related cancers in the US population and used standardized inputs regarding historical and future vaccination uptake, vaccine efficacy, cervical cancer screening, and costs. Disease outcomes included cervical, anal, oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal, and penile cancers, as well as genital warts. Both models projected higher costs and greater health benefits as the upper age limit of HPV vaccination increased. Strategies of vaccinating females and males up to ages 30, 35, and 40 years were found to be less cost-effective than vaccinating up to age 45 years, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) greater than a commonly accepted upper threshold of $200,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. When including all HPV-related outcomes, the ICER for vaccinating up to age 45 years ranged from $315,700 to $440,600 per QALY gained. Assumptions regarding cervical screening compliance, vaccine costs, and the natural history of noncervical HPV-related cancers had major impacts on the cost-effectiveness of the vaccination strategies. Key limitations of the study were related to uncertainties in the data used to inform the models, including the timing of vaccine impact on noncervical cancers and vaccine efficacy at older ages. CONCLUSIONS: Our results from 2 independent models suggest that HPV vaccination for adult women and men aged 30 to 45 years is unlikely to represent good value for money in the US.
Authors: Anna R Giuliano; Joel M Palefsky; Stephen Goldstone; Edson D Moreira; Mary E Penny; Carlos Aranda; Eftyhia Vardas; Harald Moi; Heiko Jessen; Richard Hillman; Yen-Hwa Chang; Daron Ferris; Danielle Rouleau; Janine Bryan; J Brooke Marshall; Scott Vuocolo; Eliav Barr; David Radley; Richard M Haupt; Dalya Guris Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Mona Saraiya; Elizabeth R Unger; Trevor D Thompson; Charles F Lynch; Brenda Y Hernandez; Christopher W Lyu; Martin Steinau; Meg Watson; Edward J Wilkinson; Claudia Hopenhayn; Glenn Copeland; Wendy Cozen; Edward S Peters; Youjie Huang; Maria Sibug Saber; Sean Altekruse; Marc T Goodman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kate T Simms; Jean-François Laprise; Megan A Smith; Jie-Bin Lew; Michael Caruana; Marc Brisson; Karen Canfell Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2016-11-29
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Orrin Myers; William C Hunt; Michael Robertson; Nancy E Joste; Philip E Castle; Vicki B Benard; Cosette M Wheeler Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Megan A Smith; Emily A Burger; Alejandra Castanon; Inge M C M de Kok; Sharon J B Hanley; Matejka Rebolj; Michaela T Hall; Erik E L Jansen; James Killen; Xavier O'Farrell; Jane J Kim; Karen Canfell Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-05-23 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: Gui Liu; Nelly R Mugo; Cara Bayer; Darcy White Rao; Maricianah Onono; Nyaradzo M Mgodi; Zvavahera M Chirenje; Betty W Njoroge; Nicholas Tan; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Ruanne V Barnabas Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2022-02-19
Authors: Emily A Burger; Inge M C M de Kok; James F O'Mahony; Matejka Rebolj; Erik E L Jansen; Daniel D de Bondt; James Killen; Sharon J Hanley; Alejandra Castanon; Jane J Kim; Karen Canfell; Megan A Smith; Mary Caroline Regan Journal: medRxiv Date: 2022-07-25
Authors: Inge M C M de Kok; James F O'Mahony; Emily A Burger; Matejka Rebolj; Erik E L Jansen; Daniel D de Bondt; James Killen; Sharon J Hanley; Alejandra Castanon; Mary Caroline Regan; Jane J Kim; Karen Canfell; Megan A Smith Journal: Elife Date: 2022-10-12 Impact factor: 8.713