Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2018;14(12):3010-3018. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2018.1496878. Epub 2018 Sep 11.

Should human papillomavirus vaccination target women over age 26, heterosexual men and men who have sex with men? A targeted literature review of cost-effectiveness.

Author information

1
a Research Centre for Public Health, School of Medicine , Tsinghua University , Beijing , China.
2
b Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health , Melbourne , Australia.
3
c Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine , Monash University , Melbourne , Australia.
4
d London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London , UK.
5
e Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health , The University of Auckland , Auckland , New Zealand.
6
f School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine , Monash University , Melbourne , Australia.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for young women up to age 26 is highly cost-effective and has been implemented in 65 countries globally. We investigate the cost-effectiveness for HPV vaccination program in older women (age > 26 years), heterosexual men and men who have sex with men (MSM).

METHOD:

A targeted literature review was conducted on PubMed for publications between January 2000 and January 2017 according to the PRISMA guidelines. We included English-language articles that reported the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of HPV vaccination programs for women over age 26, heterosexual men, and MSM and identified the underlying factors for its cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS:

We included 36 relevant articles (six, 26 and four in older women, heterosexual men and MSM, respectively) from 17 countries (12 high-income (HICs) and five low- and middle-income (LMICs) countries). Most (4/6) studies in women over age 26 did not show cost-effectiveness ($65,000-192,000/QALY gained). Two showed cost-effectiveness, but only when the vaccine cost was largely subsidised and protection to non-naïve women was also considered. Sixteen of 26 studies in heterosexual men were cost-effective (ICER = $19,600-52,800/QALY gained in HICs; $49-5,860/QALY gained in LMICs). Nonavalent vaccines, a low vaccine price, fewer required doses, and a long vaccine protection period were key drivers for cost-effectiveness. In contrast, all four studies on MSM consistently reported cost-effectiveness (ICER = $15,000-$43,000/QALY gained), particularly in MSM age < 40 years and those who were HIV-positive. Countries' vaccination coverage did not significantly correlate with its per-capita Gross National Income.

CONCLUSION:

Targeted HPV vaccination for MSM should be next priority in HPV prevention after having established a solid girls vaccination programme. Vaccination for heterosexual men should be considered when 2-dose 4vHPV/9vHPV vaccines become available with a reduced price, whereas targeted vaccination for women over age 26 is unlikely to be cost-effective.

KEYWORDS:

Human papillomavirus; cost-effectiveness; men who have sex with men; vaccine

PMID:
30024823
PMCID:
PMC6343618
[Available on 2019-09-11]
DOI:
10.1080/21645515.2018.1496878

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Taylor & Francis
Loading ...
Support Center