Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Drugs
Published in: Drugs 5/2012

01-03-2012 | Systematic Review

The Cost Effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines

A Systematic Review

Authors: Katherine Seto, Dr Fawziah Marra, Adam Raymakers, Carlo A. Marra

Published in: Drugs | Issue 5/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the world’s most common sexually transmitted infections, and has been associated with a number of cervical and non-cervical diseases, including cancer. HPV vaccines have been licensed for use in females for some time, but the quadrivalent vaccine has only recently become licensed for use in males. Many countries have adopted a vaccination programme for adolescent females based on results of cost-effectiveness analyses. However, given the new indications for use of the vaccine in males, decision makers require information on the cost effectiveness of vaccinating males in order to make policy decisions on whether or not to fund such programmes.
Objective: Our objective was to conduct a qualitative systematic review to update a previously conducted review of HPV vaccine studies.
Methods: Articles were obtained from an extensive literature search to determine the cost effectiveness of implementing an HPV vaccination programme with routine cervical cancer screening. A total of 29 studies were included in this review. Seventeen of the included articles looked only at cervical disease outcomes, and 12 studies also included non-cervical disease outcomes. Four studies explored the economic impact of vaccinating both boys and girls. One study focused on a population of men who have sex with men (MSM).
Results: While different model structures, input parameters and baseline assumptions were used, the consistent message in studies that focused on female-only vaccination programmes was that routine vaccination of females is cost effective compared with cervical cancer screening alone.
Discussion: Based on the currently available literature, it appears that the addition of boys to a vaccination programme generally exceeds traditional cost-effectiveness thresholds. The MSM population represents a potential additional target for routine HPV vaccination; however, more cost-effectiveness studies are required before making such a policy change.
Literature
1.
Smith JS, Lindsay L, Hoots B, et al. Human papillomavirus type distribution in invasive cervical cancer and high-grade cervical lesions: a meta-analysis update. Int J Cancer 2007; 121: 621–32PubMedCrossRef
2.
Parkin DM, Bray F. Chapter 2: the burden of HPV-related cancers. Vaccine 2006; 24 Suppl. 3: S3/11–25
3.
Parkin DM. The global health burden of infection-associated cancers in the year 2002. Int J Cancer 2006; 118: 3030–44PubMedCrossRef
4.
Goodman A. Primary vaginal cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1998; 7: 347–61PubMed
5.
Jones RW, Rowan DM, Stewart AW. Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia: aspects of the natural history and outcome in 405 women. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106: 1319–26PubMedCrossRef
6.
Dianzani C, Calvieri S, Pierangeli A, et al. Identification of human papilloma viruses in male dysplastic genital lesions. New Microbiol 2004; 27: 65–9PubMed
7.
McKaig RG, Baric RS, Olshan AF. Human papillomavirus and head and neck cancer: epidemiology and molecular biology. Head Neck 1998; 20: 250–65PubMedCrossRef
8.
Lacey CJ, Lowndes CM, Shah KV. Chapter 4: burden and management of non-cancerous HPV-related conditions. HPV-6/11 disease. Vaccine 2006; 24 Suppl. 3: S3/35–41
9.
Wiley D, Masongsong E. Human papillomavirus: the burden of infection. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2006; 61: S3–14PubMedCrossRef
10.
Derkay CS, Darrow DH. Recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006; 115: 1–11PubMed
11.
12.
13.
Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler C, et al. Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 364: 1757–65PubMedCrossRef
14.
Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler CM, et al. Sustained efficacy up to 4.5 years of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine against human papillomavirus types 16 and 18: follow-up from a randomised control trial. Lancet 2006; 367: 1247–55PubMedCrossRef
15.
Mao C, Koutsky LA, Ault KA, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus-16 vaccine to prevent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 18–27PubMedCrossRef
16.
Villa LL, Ault KA, Giuliano AR, et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus types 6, 11, 16, and 18. Vaccine 2006; 24: 5571–83PubMedCrossRef
17.
Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA, et al. Prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in young women: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II efficacy trial. Lancet Oncol 2005; 6: 271–8PubMedCrossRef
18.
Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA, et al. High sustained efficacy of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus types 6/11/16/18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine through 5 years of follow-up. Br J Cancer 2006; 95: 1459–66PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
19.
FUTURE I/II Study Group, Dillner J, Kjaer SK, et al. Four year efficacy of prophylactic human papillomavirus quadrivalent vaccine against low grade cervical, vulvar, and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia and anogenital warts: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010; 341: c3493PubMedCrossRef
20.
Koutsky LA, Ault KA, Wheeler CM, et al. A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1645–51PubMedCrossRef
21.
FUTURE II Study Group. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1915–27CrossRef
22.
Garland SM, Hernandez-Avila M, Wheeler CM, et al. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent anogenital diseases. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1928–43PubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
25.
Markowitz LE, Dunne EF, Saraiya M, et al. Quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 2007; 56: 1–24PubMed
26.
Insinga RP, Dasbach EJ, Elbasha EH. Assessing the annual economic burden of preventing and treating anogenital human papillomavirus-related disease in the US: analytic framework and review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23(11): 1107–22PubMedCrossRef
27.
Fleurence RL, Dixon JM, Milanova TF, et al. Review of the economic and quality-of-life burden of cervical human papillomavirus disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196: 206–12PubMedCrossRef
28.
29.
30.
Kulasingam SL, Myers ER. Potential health and economic impact of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to screening programs. JAMA 2003; 290: 781–9PubMedCrossRef
31.
Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, et al. Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 604–15PubMedCrossRef
32.
Brisson M, Van de Velde N, De Wals P, et al. The potential cost-effectiveness of prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccines in Canada. Vaccine 2007; 25: 5399–408PubMedCrossRef
33.
Kulasingam S, Connelly L, Conway E, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to the Australian national cervical cancer screening program. Sex Health 2007; 4: 165–75PubMedCrossRef
34.
35.
Garnett GP. Role of herd immunity in determining the effect of vaccines against sexually transmitted disease. J Infect Dis 2005; 191 Suppl. 1: S97–106PubMedCrossRef
36.
Marra F, Cloutier K, Oteng B, et al. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccine: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27(2): 127–47PubMedCrossRef
37.
Drummond MF, Richardson WS, O’Brien BJ, et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. A: are the results of the study valid? Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 1997; 277: 1552–7
38.
Ginsberg GM, Fisher M, Ben-Shahar I, et al. Cost-utility analysis of vaccination against HPV in Israel. Vaccine 2007; 25: 6677–91PubMedCrossRef
39.
Dasbach EJ, Insinga RP, Elbasha EH. The epidemiological and economic impact of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (6/11/16/18) in the UK. BJOG 2008; 115: 947–56PubMedCrossRef
40.
41.
Kim JJ, Kobus KE, Diaz M, et al. Exploring the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination in Vietnam: insights for evidence-based cervical cancer prevention policy. Vaccine 2008; 26: 4015–24PubMedCrossRef
42.
43.
Rogoza RM, Ferko N, Bentley J, et al. Optimization of primary and secondary cervical cancer prevention strategies in an era of cervical cancer vaccination: a multi-regional health economic analysis. Vaccine 2008; 26 Suppl. 5: F46–58PubMedCrossRef
44.
Diaz M, Kim JJ, Albero G, et al. Health and economic impact of HPV 16 and 18 vaccination and cervical cancer screening in India. Br J Cancer 2008; 99: 230–8PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
45.
Usher C, Tilson L, Olsen J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccine in reducing the risk of cervical cancer in Ireland due to HPV types 16 and 18 using a transmission dynamic model. Vaccine 2008; 26: 5654–61PubMedCrossRef
46.
Zechmeister I, Blasio BF, Garnett G, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus-vaccination programs to prevent cervical cancer in Austria. Vaccine 2009; 27: 5133–41PubMedCrossRef
47.
Coupé VM, van Ginkel J, de Melker HE, et al. HPV16/18 vaccination to prevent cervical cancer in the Netherlands: model-based cost-effectiveness. Int J Cancer 2009; 124: 970–8PubMedCrossRef
48.
Annemans L, Remy V, Oyee J, et al. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in Belgium. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27: 231–45PubMedCrossRef
49.
Kim JJ, Goldie SJ. Cost effectiveness analysis of including boys in a human papillomavirus vaccination programme in the United States. BMJ 2009; 339: b3884PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
50.
Kim JJ, Ortendahl J, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening in women older than 30 years in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 538–45PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
51.
Thiry N, De Laet C, Hulstaert F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in Belgium: do not forget about cervical cancer screening. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25: 161–70PubMedCrossRef
52.
Rogoza RM, Westra TA, Ferko N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic vaccination against human papillomavirus 16/18 for the prevention of cervical cancer: adaptation of an existing cohort model to the situation in the Netherlands. Vaccine 2009; 27: 4776–83PubMedCrossRef
53.
de Kok IM, van Ballegooijen M, Habbema JD. Cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus vaccination in the Netherlands. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 1083–92PubMedCrossRef
54.
Colantonio L, Gomez JA, Demarteau N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a cervical cancer vaccine in five Latin American countries. Vaccine 2009; 27: 5519–29PubMedCrossRef
55.
Sinanovic E, Moodley J, Barone MA, et al. The potential cost-effectiveness of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to the cervical cancer screening programme in South Africa. Vaccine 2009; 27: 6196–202PubMedCrossRef
56.
Reynales-Shigematsu LM, Rodrigues ER, Lazcano-Ponce E. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a quadrivalent human papilloma virus vaccine in Mexico. Arch Med Res 2009; 40: 503–13PubMedCrossRef
57.
Anonychuk AM, Bauch CT, Merid MF, et al. A cost-utility analysis of cervical cancer vaccination in preadolescent Canadian females. BMC Public Health 2009; 9: 401PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
58.
Mennini FS, Giorgi Rossi P, Palazzo F, et al. Health and economic impact associated with a quadrivalent HPV vaccine in italy. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112: 370–6PubMedCrossRef
59.
Dee A, Howell F. A cost-utility analysis of adding a bivalent or quadrivalent HPV vaccine to the Irish cervical screening programme. Eur J Public Health 2010; 20: 213–9PubMedCrossRef
60.
Dasbach EJ, Nagy L, Brandtmuller A, et al. The cost effectiveness of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (6/11/16/18) in Hungary. J Med Econ 2010; 13: 110–8PubMedCrossRef
61.
Elbasha EH, Dasbach EJ. Impact of vaccinating boys and men against HPV in the United States. Vaccine 2010; 28: 6858–67PubMedCrossRef
62.
Diaz M, de Sanjose S, Ortendahl J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination and screening in Spain. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 2973–85PubMedCrossRef
63.
Torvinen S, Nieminen P, Lehtinen M, et al. Cost effectiveness of prophylactic HPV 16/18 vaccination in Finland: results from a modelling exercise. J Med Econ 2010; 13: 284–94PubMedCrossRef
64.
Liu PH, Hu FC, Lee PI, et al. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination for prevention of cervical cancer in Taiwan. BMC Health Serv Res 2010; 10: 11PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
65.
Olsen J, Jepsen MR. Human papillomavirus transmission and cost-effectiveness of introducing quadrivalent HPV vaccination in Denmark. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26: 183–91PubMedCrossRef
66.
Kim JJ. Targeted human papillomavirus vaccination of men who have sex with men in the USA: a cost-effectiveness modelling analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2010; 10(12): 845–52PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
67.
Debicki D, Ferko N, Demarteau N, et al. Comparison of detailed and succinct cohort modelling approaches in a multi-regional evaluation of cervical cancer vaccination. Vaccine 2008; 26 Suppl. 5: F16–28PubMedCrossRef
68.
Kohli M, Ferko N, Martin A, et al. Estimating the long-term impact of a prophylactic human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine on the burden of cervical cancer in the UK. Br J Cancer 2007; 96: 143–50PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
69.
Goldie SJ, Kim JJ, Kobus K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of HPV 16, 18 vaccination in Brazil. Vaccine 2007; 25: 6257–70PubMedCrossRef
70.
Kim JJ, Kuntz KM, Stout NK, et al. Multiparameter calibration of a natural history model of cervical cancer. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 166: 137–50PubMedCrossRef
71.
72.
Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Stout NK, Salomon JA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus DNA testing and HPV-16,18 vaccination. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 308–20PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
73.
Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Womack SM, et al. Benefits and costs of using HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer. JAMA 2002; 287: 2372–81PubMedCrossRef
74.
Habbema JD, van Oortmarssen GJ, Lubbe JT, et al. The MISCAN simulation program for the evaluation of screening for disease. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1985; 20: 79–93PubMedCrossRef
75.
Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, et al. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 151: 1158–71PubMedCrossRef
76.
Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Stout NK, Ortendahl J, et al. Modeling human papillomavirus and cervical cancer in the United States for analyses of screening and vaccination. Popul Health Metr 2007; 5: 11PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
77.
Suarez E, Smith JS, Bosch FX, et al. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination against cervical cancer: a multi-regional analysis assessing the impact of vaccine characteristics and alternative vaccination scenarios. Vaccine 2008; 26 Suppl. 5: F29–45PubMedCrossRef
78.
Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 322–38PubMedCrossRef
79.
80.
81.
82.
Kim JJ, Andres-Beck B, Goldie SJ. The value of including boys in an HPV vaccination programme: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a low-resource setting. Br J Cancer 2007; 97: 1322–8PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
83.
Elbasha EH, Dasbach EJ, Insinga RP. A multi-type HPV transmission model. Bull Math Biol 2008; 70: 2126–76PubMedCrossRef
84.
85.
Insinga RP, Dasbach EJ, Elbasha EH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in Mexico: a transmission dynamic model-based evaluation. Vaccine 2007; 26: 128–39PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Cost Effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines
A Systematic Review
Authors
Katherine Seto
Dr Fawziah Marra
Adam Raymakers
Carlo A. Marra
Publication date
01-03-2012
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Drugs / Issue 5/2012
Print ISSN: 0012-6667
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1950
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11599470-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 5/2012

Drugs 5/2012 Go to the issue

Adis Drug Evaluation

Tranexamic Acid

Review Article

Antifungal Chemoprophylaxis in Children and Adolescents with Haematological Malignancies and Following Allogeneic Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Current Opinion

Induction Therapy in Renal Transplant Recipients

Adis Drug Evaluation

Rasagiline

Review Article

Medical Therapy of Endometrial Cancer

Erratum

Erratum to: Repaglinide: a review of its use in type 2 diabetes mellitus