Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33705382›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2021

Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults aged 30 to 45 years in the United States: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Jane J Kim, Kate T Simms, James Killen, Megan A Smith, Emily A Burger, Stephen Sy, Catherine Regan, Karen Canfell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic review of microsimulation models for skin cancer.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Adapting Sexual Behavior Survey Data to Parameterize an Agent-Based Model of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Transmission.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jane J KimDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9892-9170
Kate T SimmsCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2568-7956
James KillenCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0599-3000
Megan A SmithCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0401-2653
Emily A BurgerDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6657-5849
Stephen SyDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Catherine ReganDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Karen CanfellCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6443-6618
The University of Sydney · AUCancer Council NSW · AUUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

Comparative Modeling to Inform Cervical Cancer Control Policies: USPSTF SupplementU01CA253912 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI BARNABAS, RUANNE VANESSA, CANFELL, KAREN · 2020 to 2024
$7.9M
Comparative Modeling to Inform Cervical Cancer Control PoliciesU01CA199334 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI BARNABAS, RUANNE VANESSA, CANFELL, KAREN · 2015 to 2019
$6.4M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA199334NCI NIH HHS U01 CA253912
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been licensed for use in women and men up to age 45 years in the United States. The cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination for women and men aged 30 to 45 years in the context of cervical cancer screening practice was evaluated to inform national guidelines. METHODS AND

findingsWe utilized 2 independent HPV microsimulation models to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of extending the upper age limit of HPV vaccination in women (from age 26 years) and men (from age 21 years) up to age 30, 35, 40, or 45 years. The models were empirically calibrated to reflect the burden of HPV and related cancers in the US population and used standardized inputs regarding historical and future vaccination uptake, vaccine efficacy, cervical cancer screening, and costs. Disease outcomes included cervical, anal, oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal, and penile cancers, as well as genital warts. Both models projected higher costs and greater health benefits as the upper age limit of HPV vaccination increased. Strategies of vaccinating females and males up to ages 30, 35, and 40 years were found to be less cost-effective than vaccinating up to age 45 years, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) greater than a commonly accepted upper threshold of $200,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. When including all HPV-related outcomes, the ICER for vaccinating up to age 45 years ranged from $315,700 to $440,600 per QALY gained. Assumptions regarding cervical screening compliance, vaccine costs, and the natural history of noncervical HPV-related cancers had major impacts on the cost-effectiveness of the vaccination strategies. Key limitations of the study were related to uncertainties in the data used to inform the models, including the timing of vaccine impact on noncervical cancers and vaccine efficacy at older ages.

conclusionsOur results from 2 independent models suggest that HPV vaccination for adult women and men aged 30 to 45 years is unlikely to represent good value for money in the US.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesUnited StatesVaccinationPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID33705382
PMCPMC7951902
OpenAlexW3134948018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.