Long-term impact and cost-effectiveness
Whether the effects are temporary or lifelong, widespread vaccination could have a substantial public health impact. As of 2018, studies have proven that cervical cancer rates have dropped significantly since the introduction of Gardasil.[74] Before Gardasil was introduced in 2006, 270,000 women died of cervical cancer worldwide in 2002.[75] As of 2014, the mortality rate from cervical cancer has dropped 50% from 1975 which is due to the Gardasil vaccination along with increased focus on cervical screening.[76] Acting FDA administrator Andrew von Eschenbach said the vaccine will have "a dramatic effect" on the health of women around the world.[77] Gardasil is an important tool in reducing cervical cancer rates even in countries where screening programs are routine. The National Cancer Institute estimated that 9,700 women would develop cervical cancer in 2006, and 3,700 would die.[78]
Merck and CSL Limited are expected to market Gardasil as a cancer vaccine, rather than an STD vaccine. In the early years of Gardasil's introduction it was unclear how widespread the use of the three-shot series would be, in part because of its $525 list price ($175 each for three shots).[79] But as of 2013, vaccine coverage has been rising.[74] In 2013, about 55% of girls ages 13–17 years had at least one dose of the vaccination covered, up from 29% in 2007. Coverage for women ages 18–34 also has increased significantly since 2007.[74]
Studies using different pharmacoeconomic models predict that vaccinating young women with Gardasil in combination with screening programs may be more cost effective than screening alone.[80] These results have been important in decisions by many countries to start vaccination programs.[81] For example, the Canadian government approved $300 million to buy the HPV vaccine in 2008 after deciding from studies that the vaccine would be cost-effective especially by immunizing young women.[82] Marc Steben, an investigator for the vaccine, wrote that the financial burden of HPV related cancers on the Canadian people was already $300 million per year in 2005, so the vaccine could reduce this burden and be cost-effective.[83]
Since penile and anal cancers are much less common than cervical cancer, HPV vaccination of young men is likely to be much less cost-effective than for young women yet is still recommended due to the existent risk (including oral cancer).[62]
The August 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article reiterating the safety of Gardasil[65] and another questioning the way it was presented to doctors and parents.
"The new vaccine against 4 types of human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil, like other immunizations appears to be a cost-effective intervention with the potential to enhance both adolescent health and the quality of their adult lives. However, the messages and the methods by which the vaccine was marketed present important challenges to physician practice and medical professionalism. By making the vaccine's target disease cervical cancer, the sexual transmission of HPV was minimized, the threat of cervical cancer to adolescents was maximized, and the subpopulations most at risk practically ignored. The vaccine manufacturer also provided educational grants to professional medical associations (PMAs) concerned with adolescent and women's health and oncology. The funding encouraged many PMAs to create educational programs and product-specific speakers' bureaus to promote vaccine use. However, much of the material did not address the full complexity of the issues surrounding the vaccine and did not provide balanced recommendations on risks and benefits. As important and appropriate as it is for PMAs to advocate for vaccination as a public good, their recommendations must be consistent with appropriate and cost-effective use.[84]"
According to the CDC, as of 2012, use of the HPV vaccine had cut rates of infection with HPV-6, -11, -16 and -18 in half in American teenagers (from 11.5% to 4.3%) and by one third in American women in their early twenties (from 18.5% to 12.1%).[85]