The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation's Advice on Extending Human Papillomavirus Vaccination to Boys: Were Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines Bent to Achieve a Politically Acceptable Decision?

Cost-effectiveness and epidemiological impact of gender-neutral HPV vaccination in Spain

All EU countries have introduced Human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination for adolescent girls and many countries are expanding the strategy to include adolescent boys. There is uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness and epidemiological impact of a gender-neutral HPV vaccination strategy. Here we present the results of an economic model adapted for Spain. Five vaccination strategies were compared from the Spanish healthcare system perspective, combining two vaccines (4-valent and 9-valent) in a gender-neutral or girls-only programme in a dynamic population-based model with a discrete-time Markov approach. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3%. The benefits of immunization were measured with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which are achieved by reducing the incidence of diseases attributable to HPV. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was compared with the willingness-to-pay threshold in Spain. The two most effective strategies were compared: gender-neutral 9-valent vaccination vs. girls-only 9-valent vaccination, resulting in an ICER of € 34,040/QALY, and an important number of prevented cases of invasive cancers and anogenital warts. The sensitivity analysis revealed that gender-neutral 9-valent vaccination would become cost-effective if protection against oropharyngeal and penile cancers was included or if the price per dose decreased from €45 to €28. The gender-neutral 9-valent HPV vaccination in Spain offers more benefits than any other modeled strategy, although in the conservative base case it is not cost-effective. However, certain plausible assumptions would turn it into an efficient strategy, which should be borne in mind by the decision makers together with equity and justice arguments.

Cost-effectiveness of extending the HPV vaccination to boys: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection can have severe consequences both in women and men. Preadolescent girls are vaccinated against HPV worldwide but a gender-neutral vaccination is being adopted only little by little. This systematic review offers an overview of cost-effectiveness of the gender-neutral HPV vaccination.

METHODS

Economic evaluations of gender-neutral HPV vaccination with a two-dose schedule compared with girls-only strategy were systematically searched in Medline, Embase and WOS up to June 2020. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and key parameters were analysed.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Four studies concluded in favour of the gender-neutral programme, another four found it cost-effective only in alternative scenarios. The most influential parameters are the discount rate of benefits (same as for costs vs reduced), vaccine price (listed vs publicly negotiated) and included health problems (inclusion of oropharyngeal and penile cancers). Sponsorship was not decisive for the final result, but there were differences between industry-funded and independent studies in some cost categories.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence of the cost-effectiveness of extending HPV vaccination to boys is scarce and ambiguous. Before the adoption of such a strategy, countries should carry out context-specific cost-effectiveness analyses, but the decision should also take into account other criteria, such as gender-related equality.

Evaluating Vaccination Programs That Prevent Diseases With Potentially Catastrophic Health Outcomes: How Can We Capture the Value of Risk Reduction?

In the last 5 years, guidelines have been developed for performing cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) for the economic evaluation of vaccination programs against infectious diseases. However, these cost-effectiveness guidelines do not provide specific guidance for including the value of reducing the risk of rare but potentially catastrophic health outcomes, such as mortality or long-term sequelae. Alternative economic evaluation methods, including extended CEA, the impact inventory, cost-benefit analyses, willingness to pay or the value of a statistical life, to capture the value of this risk reduction could provide more complete estimates of the value of vaccination programs for diseases with potentially catastrophic health and nonhealth outcomes. In this commentary, using invasive meningococcal disease as an example, we describe these alternative approaches along with examples to illustrate how the benefits of vaccination in reducing risk of catastrophic health outcomes can be valued. These benefits are not usually captured in CEAs that only include population benefits estimated as the quality-adjusted life-years gained and reduced costs from avoided cases.