Phuong T Tran1,2, Munaza Riaz3,4, Ziyan Chen3, Cong Bang Truong5, Vakaramoko Diaby3. 1. Faculty of Pharmacy, HUTECH University, 475A Dien Bien Phu Street, Ward 25, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City, 700000, Vietnam. tt.phuong@hutech.edu.vn. 2. Department of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. tt.phuong@hutech.edu.vn. 3. Department of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4. Institute of Pharmacy, Lahore College for Women University, Lahore, Pakistan. 5. Department of Health Outcomes Research and Policy, Harrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although many systematic reviews for the human papillomavirus vaccines cost effectiveness have been published, they vary in perspectives, methods, and quality. We aimed to condense systematically such evidence to facilitate locating, processing, and learning, not only about the consensus of findings but also how models were built and their evolution over time and across settings. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review of cost-effectiveness studies for human papillomavirus vaccines using three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane). Based on their objectives, we classified studies into three groups (human papillomavirus vaccines cost effectiveness, model characteristics, and all-type vaccines, including human papillomavirus vaccines). We used the AMTAR2 to assess the quality of the studies. Additionally, we provided a summary of study findings, discussions, and evidence gaps in the literature. RESULTS: Though most studies were critically low quality and had a low quality of reporting, the human papillomavirus vaccine was consistently cost effective in young girls and men who have sex with men. Stratified analyses by rated quality did not change the results. The quality assessment of the reviews did not necessarily reflect the quality assessment of underlying studies. The human papillomavirus vaccine models became more complex over time, capturing more realistic disease transmission with different human papillomavirus strains and herd immunities. CONCLUSIONS: Additional evidence is needed for vulnerable populations (e.g., childhood cancer survivors) who are at high risk for human papillomavirus vaccine-related cancers and, therefore, may be more cost effective when receiving human papillomavirus vaccines. Quantifying human papillomavirus vaccine cost effectiveness via meta-analyses is feasible if investigators can increase the homogeneity of their populations.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although many systematic reviews for the human papillomavirus vaccines cost effectiveness have been published, they vary in perspectives, methods, and quality. We aimed to condense systematically such evidence to facilitate locating, processing, and learning, not only about the consensus of findings but also how models were built and their evolution over time and across settings. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review of cost-effectiveness studies for human papillomavirus vaccines using three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane). Based on their objectives, we classified studies into three groups (human papillomavirus vaccines cost effectiveness, model characteristics, and all-type vaccines, including human papillomavirus vaccines). We used the AMTAR2 to assess the quality of the studies. Additionally, we provided a summary of study findings, discussions, and evidence gaps in the literature. RESULTS: Though most studies were critically low quality and had a low quality of reporting, the human papillomavirus vaccine was consistently cost effective in young girls and men who have sex with men. Stratified analyses by rated quality did not change the results. The quality assessment of the reviews did not necessarily reflect the quality assessment of underlying studies. The human papillomavirus vaccine models became more complex over time, capturing more realistic disease transmission with different human papillomavirus strains and herd immunities. CONCLUSIONS: Additional evidence is needed for vulnerable populations (e.g., childhood cancer survivors) who are at high risk for human papillomavirus vaccine-related cancers and, therefore, may be more cost effective when receiving human papillomavirus vaccines. Quantifying human papillomavirus vaccine cost effectiveness via meta-analyses is feasible if investigators can increase the homogeneity of their populations.
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Kimberly S Andrews; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Lacey Loomer; Kristina E Lam; Marcie Fisher-Borne; Robert A Smith; Elizabeth T H Fontham Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 508.702
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: Beverley J Shea; Barnaby C Reeves; George Wells; Micere Thuku; Candyce Hamel; Julian Moran; David Moher; Peter Tugwell; Vivian Welch; Elizabeth Kristjansson; David A Henry Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-09-21