Assessing the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination strategies for adolescent girls and boys in the UK

BackgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) is the most widespread sexually transmitted infection worldwide. It causes several health consequences, in particular accounting for the majority of cervical cancer cases in women. In the United Kingdom, a vaccination campaign targeting 12-year-old girls started in 2008; this campaign has been successful, with high uptake and reduced HPV prevalence observed in vaccinated cohorts. Recently, attention has focused on vaccinating both sexes, due to HPV-related diseases in males (particularly for high-risk men who have sex with men) and an equity argument over equalising levels of protection.MethodsWe constructed an epidemiological model for HPV transmission in the UK, accounting for nine of the most common HPV strains. We complemented this with an economic model to determine the likely health outcomes (healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years) for individuals from the epidemiological model. We then tested vaccination with the three HPV vaccines currently available, vaccinating either girls alone or both sexes. For each strategy we calculated the threshold price per vaccine dose, i.e. the maximum amount paid for the added health benefits of vaccination to be worth the cost of each vaccine dose. We calculated results at 3.5% discounting, and also 1.5%, to consider the long-term health effects of HPV infection.ResultsAt 3.5% discounting, continuing to vaccinate girls remains highly cost-effective compared to halting vaccination, with threshold dose prices of 56-108 pound. Vaccination of girls and boys is less cost-effective (25- pound 53) pound. Compared to vaccinating girls only, adding boys to the programme is not cost-effective, with negative threshold prices (-6 pound to -3) pound due to the costs of administration. All threshold prices increase when using 1.5% discounting, and adding boys becomes cost-effective (36- pound 47) pound. These results are contingent on the UK's high vaccine uptake; for lower uptake rates, adding boys (at the same uptake rate) becomes more cost effective.ConclusionsVaccinating girls is extremely cost-effective compared with no vaccination, vaccinating both sexes is less so. Adding boys to an already successful girls-only programme has a low cost-effectiveness, as males have high protection through herd immunity. If future health effects are weighted more heavily, threshold prices increase and vaccination becomes cost-effective.