Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The effectiveness of vaccination to prevent the papillomavirus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2019

Herney Andrés García-Perdomo
Affiliation:
Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia UROGIV Research Group, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia
Julio Cesar Osorio
Affiliation:
School of Basic Sciences at Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia
Adrian Fernandez
Affiliation:
School of Public Health at Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia
James Alejandro Zapata-Copete
Affiliation:
UROGIV Research Group, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia Department of Epidemiology at Universidad Libre, Cali, Colombia
Andrés Castillo
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Faculty of Natural and Exact Sciences at Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia
Corresponding
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our purpose was to determine the effectiveness and harms of vaccination in patients with any sexual history to prevent the prevalence of papillomavirus infection. A search strategy was conducted in the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and LILACS databases. Searches were also conducted in other databases and unpublished literature. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Analysis of fixed effects was conducted. The primary outcome was the infection by any and each human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype, serious adverse effects and short-term adverse effects. The measure of the effect was the risk difference (RD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The planned interventions were bivalent vaccine/tetravalent/nonavalent vs. placebo/no intervention/other vaccines. We included 29 studies described in 35 publications. Bivalent HPV vaccine offers protection against HPV16 (RD −0.05, 95% CI −0.098 to −0.0032), HPV18 (RD −0.03, 95% CI −0.062 to −0.0004) and HPV16/18 genotypes (RD of −0.1, 95% CI −0.16 to −0.04). On the other side, tetravalent HPV vaccine offered protection against HPV6 (RD of −0.0500, 95% CI −0.0963 to −0.0230), HPV11 (RD −0.0198, 95% CI −0.0310 to −0.0085). Also, against HPV16 (RD of −0.0608, 95% CI −0.1126 to −0.0091) and HPV18 (RD of −0.0200, 95% CI −0.0408 to −0.0123). There was a reduction in the prevalence of HPV16, 18 and 16/18 genotypes when applying the bivalent vaccine, with no increase in adverse effects. Regarding the tetravalent vaccine, we found a reduction in the prevalence of HPV6, 11, 16 and 18 genotypes, with no increase in adverse effects.

Type
Original Paper
Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019

Introduction

The development of the three FDA-approved multivalent prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines has been because of the discovery of HPV infection as the cause of all cervical cancer [Reference Lowy1]. The three prophylactic HPV vaccines have shown high efficacy for prevention of HPV infection [Reference Joura2].

Cervarix® and Gardasil® were the first vaccines for the prevention of the cervical cancer. Cervarix® targets types 16 and 18 HPV, which are responsible for 70% of all cervical cancer [Reference Wang and Palefsky3], while Gardasil®, on the other hand, adds also activity against types 6 and 11 HPV, which cause 90% of anogenital warts [Reference Kessels4]. Additionally to those included in the qHPV, the 9vHPV vaccine contains type 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58 antigens [Reference Lopalco5].

These vaccines are well-tolerated, safe and only with minor adverse effects. They also protect against pre-cancerous lesions caused by subtypes 16 and 18 in a naive population, adding a systemic immune response at 5 years post-vaccination [Reference Pomfret, Gagnon and Gilchrist6Reference Paavonen8].

The primary care service in United States recommended HPV vaccine for females aged 9–26, through the Vaccines for Children program since 2006 [Reference Gattoc, Nair and Ault9]. Additionally, the immunisation for adolescents aged 11–12 years and for adolescent women (aged 13–26 years) before sexually active was recommended by The US Center for Disease Control and it is accepted in many developed countries [Reference Bonanni7,Reference Markowitz10].

According to the health care system's organisation, the coverage rate and the programmes differ. Some of the vaccination programmes are offered through schools (e.g. Australia, UK) whereas others are provided in private clinics, or public primary care (e.g. the United States) [Reference Skinner and Cooper Robbins11,Reference Dorleans12].

Different studies (phases II and III) have been conducted, and a few reviews have tried to pooled the effects [Reference Szarewski13], however, none of them emphasise the changes in the prevalence/incidence of HPV serotypes in the populations. Besides, previous reports have not assessed the impact of vaccination in different ages and time since sexual beginning, nor multisite and cross-protection against HPV types. Also, there is conflict about the protection against re-infection among individuals known to be infected and who subsequently clear their infections [Reference Arbyn14].

The objective was to determine the effectiveness and harms of vaccination in patients with any sexual history to prevent the prevalence of papillomavirus infection.

Methods

We performed this review according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration [Reference Higgins and Green15] and following the PRISMA Statement [Reference Moher16]. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42017074007.

Eligibility criteria

We included only clinical trials; both gender patients from any population at any age and any sexual history. The interventions were: vaccine against HPV: HPV16 and HPV18 (bivalent vaccine), or HPV6, HPV11, HPV16 and HPV18 (tetravalent vaccine) and HPV6, HPV11, HPV16, HPV18, HPV31, HPV33, HPV45, HPV52 and HPV58 (nanovalent) genotypes. The vaccination had to be intramuscular injection over a period of 6 months according to the standard scheme. We did not include pregnant patients

The comparisons were: bivalent vaccine/tetravalent/nanovalent vs. placebo/no intervention/other vaccines.

Outcomes:

  • Infection by any HPV genotype: assessment must be by any validated technique identified by the blood sample and oral cell sample. If patients are older than 18 years old, the sample must come from the specific organ.

  • Infection by each HPV genotype: assessment must be by any validated technique identified by the blood sample and oral cell sample. If patients are older than 18 years old, the sample must come from the specific organ.

  • Serious adverse effects.

  • Short- and long-term adverse effects.

For infection and long-term adverse effect outcomes, studies had at least 1-year follow-up and for short-term outcome studies were allowed to be less than a 1-year follow-up.

Information sources

A literature search was conducted as recommended by Cochrane. We used medical subject headings (MeSh), Emtree language, Decs and text words related. We searched MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, LILACS and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The search was performed from 2000 to to date.

To ensure literature saturation, we scanned references from relevant articles identified through the search; conferences (HPV2015 and HPV2017) related to HPV and vaccines and thesis databases (e.g. Theseo). Grey literature was searched in open grey and Google scholar. We looked for clinical trials in the process in clinicaltrials.gov, the registry created by the World Health Organization and the New Zealand registry for Clinical trials, among others. We contacted authors by e-mail in case of missing information. There were no setting or language restrictions.

Data collection

Two researchers reviewed each reference by title and abstract and full-texts, applied pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and where the dispute could not be solved, a third reviewer dissolved conflict.

Two trained reviewers using a standardised form independently extracted the following information from each article: study design, geographic location, authors names, title, objectives, inclusion and exclusion criteria. Also, the number of patients, type of laboratory technique, losses to follow-up, timing, definitions of outcomes, outcomes and association measures and funding source.

Risk of bias

We assessed the risk of bias for each study with the Cochrane Collaboration tool, which covers: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting and other biases. Two independent researchers will judge about the possible risk of bias from extracted information, rated as ‘high risk,’ ‘low risk’ or ‘unclear risk.’ We described a graphic representation of potential bias using RevMan 5.3 [Reference Higgins, Altman and Gotzshe17].

Data analysis/synthesis of results

We performed the statistical analysis in R [18]. For categorical outcomes, we reported information in risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) according to the type of variables, and we pooled the data with a random effect meta-analysis according to the heterogeneity expected. The results were reported in forest plots. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I 2 test [Reference Higgins and Green15]. For the interpretation, it was determined that the values of less than 50% would be for low heterogeneity and more than 50% would be for the high level of heterogeneity.

Publication bias

We did not perform publication bias due to the number of included studies in each meta-analysis.

Sensitivity analysis

We performed sensitivity analysis extracting weighted studies, analysing the length of follow-up and running the estimated effect to find differences.

Subgroup analysis

We tried to perform subgroup analysis by co-infection, sample site, gender, age and continent however due to the scarcity of data, we were not able to do it.

Results

We found 2834 records through the electronic search strategy and 20 through other searches (Fig. 1). After excluding duplicates, we ultimately included 29 unique studies described in 35 publications in our qualitative and quantitative analysis (Kim 2010 [Reference Kim19], Harper 2006 [Reference Harper20], Kang 2008 [Reference Kang21], Reisinger 2007 [Reference Reisinger22], Levin 2010 [Reference Levin23], Giuliano 2011 [Reference Giuliano24], Muñoz 2009 [Reference Muñoz25] (including Castellsague 2011 [Reference Castellsagué26]), Villa 2006 [Reference Villa27] (including Villa 2005 [Reference Villa28]), Rivera Medina 2010 [Reference Rivera Medina29], Vesikari 2015 [Reference Vesikari30], Konno 2010 [Reference Konno31], Lehtinen 2016 [Reference Lehtinen32], Moreira Jr 2011 [Reference Moreira33], Salif Sow 2013 [Reference Salif Sow34], Wheeler 2008 [Reference Wheeler35], Herrero 2013 [Reference Herrero36] (including Beachler 2016 [Reference Beachler37], Hildesheim 2014 [Reference Hildesheim38] and Herrero 2011 [Reference Herrero39]), Lazcano-Ponce 2009 [Reference Lazcano-Ponce40], Kim 2011 [Reference Kim41], Mugo 2015 [Reference Mugo42], Wheeler 2016 [Reference Wheeler43], Zhu 2014 [Reference Zhu44], Olsson 2007 [Reference Olsson45], Apter 2015 [Reference Apter46] (including Szarewski 2012 [Reference Szarewski47] and Palmroth 2012 [Reference Palmroth48]), Toft 2014 [Reference Toft49], Einstein 2014 [Reference Einstein50], Schmeink 2011 [Reference Schmeink51], Konno 2014 [Reference Konno52], Naud 2014 [Reference Naud53], Lim 2014 [Reference Lim54]).

Fig. 1. Flowchart for selected studies.

Included studies

Settings

Most of the studies were conducted in several countries. Only Wheeler 2008 (United States), Kang 2007 (Korea), Lazcano-Ponce 2009 (Mexico), Kim 2010 (Korea), Levin 2010 (United States), Konno 2010 (Japan), Kim 2011 (Korea), Schmeink 2011 (Netherlands), Herrero 2013 (Costa Rica), Konno 2014 (Japan), Zhu 2014 (China), Lim 2014 (Malaysia), Toft 2014 (Denmark) and Lehtinen 2016 (United States) conducted their studies in a single country.

Comparisons

Harper 2006, Kim 2010, Rivera Medina 2010, Konno 2010, Kim 2011, Schmeink 2011, Salif Sow 2013, Herrero 2013, Einstein 2014, Konno 2014, Zhu 2014, Lim 2014, Toft 2014, Naud 2014, Apter 2015, Lehtinen 2016 and Wheeler 2016 used the bivalent vaccine as the primary intervention. The rest of the studies used the tetravalent vaccine, and the only one that used the 9vHPV vaccine was Vesikari 2015.

Gender

All studies included data from females. However, there were four studies (Reisinger 2007, Moreira Jr 2011, Giuliano 2011 and Lehtinen 2016) described information for males.

The rest of the information regarding the included studies is described in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies

a Studies with other publications.

Studies with follow-up less than 1 year, were included for adverse effects.

Excluded studies

Sixty-eight full-text articles were excluded (28 studies did not have the outcome of interest; 17 were not RCT; 11 studies had no intervention of interest; four studies did not have enough follow-up; four had no population of interest, and four were not related).

Risk of bias assessment

We found that 50% and 75% of the included studies were graded as unclear on describing the random sequence generation (Einstein 2014; Giuliano 2011; Harper 2006; Herrero 2013; Konno 2010; Konno 2014; Lehtinen 2016; Levin 2010; Moreira Jr 2011; Mugo 2015; Muñoz 2009; Naud 2014; Olsson 2007; Villa 2006) and the allocation concealment (Einstein 2014; Giuliano 2011; Harper 2006; Kang 2008; Kim 2010; Kim 2011; Konno 2010; Konno 2014; Lazcano-Ponce 2009; Lehtinen 2016; Levin 2010; Lim 2014; Mugo 2015; Naud 2014; Olsson 2007; Reisinger 2007; Rivera Medina 2010; Schmeink 2011; Villa 2006; Wheeler 2016; Zhu 2014) respectively.

Most of the studies described the blinding of participants and personnel appropriately. Kim 2010; Konno 2010; Konno 2014; Lehtinen 2016; Levin 2010; Naud 2014; Vesikari 2015; Villa 2006 and Wheeler 2008 were graded as unclear. Only one study (Schmeink 2011) was graded as high risk of bias since it was unblinded. Regarding the outcome assessment, only Villa 2006 was graded as unclear.

Apter 2015; Giuliano 2011; Harper 2006; Kim 2010; Kim 2011; Lazcano-Ponce 2009; Lim 2014; Naud 2014, Villa 2006; Wheeler 2008 and Salif Sow 2013 were graded as high risk of bias due to the high proportion of lost to follow-up.

No selective reporting was identified during grading in these studies. Nonetheless, all studies were industry-funded, and this leads to unclear classification (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Risk of bias assessment.

Description of effect for comparisons and outcomes

Bivalent vs. other vaccine/placebo: total

We found significant effect regarding the HPV16, HPV18 and HPV16/18 genotypes. Five studies (Konno, 2014; Zhu, 2014; Harper, 2006; Herrero 2013; Apter, 2015) searched for HPV16 as the outcome, finding a RD −0.05, 95% CI −0.098 to −0.0032 (I 2 = 99%). We found statistical differences and high heterogeneity.

Regarding the HPV18 genotype, we found five studies (Konno, 2014; Zhu, 2014; Harper, 2006; Herrero, 2013; Apter, 2015) which showed statistical differences (RD −0.03, 95% CI −0.062 to −0.0004) (I 2 = 98%). Additionally, regarding HPV16/18 genotype, we included eight studies (Konno 2014; Zhu 2014; Wheeler 2016; Harper 2006; Konno 2010; Naud 2014; Herrero 2013; Apter 2015) showing a RD of −0.1, 95% CI −0.16 to −0.04 (I 2 = 99%).

Other results for any genotype, little adverse effects and autoimmune disease are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Estimated effect of comparisons and outcomes

HPV, human papilloma virus; SAE, serious adverse effects; AE, adverse effects.

Bivalent vs. other vaccine/placebo: 1 year

Regarding the results at 1 year, we found differences in HPV16/18 genotypes. We included two studies (Herrero, 2013; Apter, 2015) with an RD of −0.0347, 95% CI −0.0404 to −0.0290 (I 2 = 9.7%).

Other results for little adverse effects and autoimmune disease are shown in Table 2.

Bivalent vs. other vaccine/placebo: 4 year

Regarding the results at four years, we found significant effect regarding the HPV16 and HPV18 and HPV16/18 genotypes. We found four studies (Konno, 2014; Zhu, 2014; Harper, 2006; Herrero, 2013), showing statistical differences with a RD −0.0377, 95% CI −0.0640 to −0.0113 (I 2 = 94.0%) for HPV16 genotype.

Additionally, four studies (Konno, 2014; Zhu, 2014; Harper, 2006; Herrero, 2013) were evaluated for HPV18 genotype. We found a RD −0.0214 (95% CI −0.0377 to −0.0051) (I 2 = 19.6%), showing statistical differences.

Other results for HPV16/18 and small adverse effects are shown in Table 2.

Tetravalent vs. other vaccine/placebo: total

Regarding this comparison, we found a significant effect in HPV11, HPV6 and HPV18 genotypes. Two studies were compared for HPV6 (Giuliano, 2011; Villa, 2006) showing an RD of −0.0500, 95% CI −0.0963 to −0.0230 (I 2 = 66.8%). For HPV11, two studies were involved in the analysis with an RD −0.0198, 95% CI −0.0310 to −0.0085 (I 2 = 0.00%) (Giuliano, 2011; Villa, 2006). For HPV18 genotype, Giuliano, 2011 and Villa, 2006 were included in the analysis, showing an RD of −0.0200, 95% CI −0.0408 to −0.0123 (I 2 = 34%).

Other results regarding HPV6, HPV16, HPV16/18, HPV6/11/16/18 and small adverse effects are shown in Table 2.

Tetravalent vs. other vaccine/placebo: 4 years

Regarding the results at four years, we found positive effects in HPV6, HPV11, HPV16, HPV18 and HPV6/11/ 16/ 18 genotypes. For HPV6 two studies were included (Giuliano, 2011; Villa, 2006) with a RD of −0.0465, 95% CI −0.0650 to −0.0281 (I 2 = 0.0%). Two studies (Giuliano, 2011; Villa, 2006) analysed the HPV11 genotype with a RD of −0.0198, 95% CI −0.0310 to −0.0085 (I 2 = 0.0%). For HPV16 and HPV18 genotypes, two studies were included (Giuliano, 2011; Villa, 2006). Regarding the HPV16 genotype, we found a RD of −0.0608, 95% CI −0.1126 to −0.0091 (I 2 = 76.4%) and regarding the HPV18 genotype, the RD was −0.0256, 95% CI −0.0397 to −0.0114 (I 2 = 0.0%). The same studies were included for HPV6/11/16/18 genotype analysis, showing an RD −0.1127, 95% CI −0.2035 to −0.0220.

Other results regarding short-term adverse effects and serious adverse effects are shown in Table 2.

Nonavalent vs. tetravalent: total

Only one study (Vesikari 2015) compared the 9vHPV against the tetravalent vaccine. The study was conducted in different countries and included people from 9 to 15 years. The outcome was evaluated at 7 months and the results were: anti-HPV16 and anti-HPV18, geometric mean titer (GMT) were similar between vaccines (anti-HPV16 GMTs: 6739.5 vs. 6887.4 mMU/ml for nonavalent and tetravalent vaccines and anti-HPV18 GMTs: 1956.6 vs. 1795.6 mMU/ml for nonavalent and tetravalent vaccines). For anti-HPV6 and anti-HPV11, GMTs were numerically similar between vaccines (anti-HPV6: 1679.4 vs. 1565.9 mMU/ml for nonavalent and tetravalent vaccines and anti-HPV11: 1315.6 vs. 1417.3 mMU/ml for nonavalent and tetravalent vaccines).

Discussion

Summary of the main results

In summary, evidence suggested that the bivalent HPV vaccine offers protection against HPV16, HPV18 and HPV16/18 genotypes without increasing adverse effects. It is consistent with 4 years for HPV16 and HPV18 genotypes. On the other side, tetravalent HPV vaccine, offered protection against HPV6, HPV11, HPV16 and HPV18 without increasing adverse effects and this was consistent at 4 years.

Comparison with other reviews or other studies

Detecting a specific capsid antibody in serum suggests an HPV infection. Although more than 50% of infected subjects will have a serological conversion, and thus detection of HPV antibodies. This has been used to analyse the natural history and the cumulative infection in different groups [Reference Pagliusi55].

Assays measuring functional neutralising ability might reflect protective immunity, based on animal experiments. Nonetheless, epitopes for HPV are not completely characterised in human responses therefore, they will be heterogeneous [Reference Pagliusi55].

Neutralisation assays are independent of vaccine material, therefore they provide an unbiased measure of HPV serological response, induced by the vaccine. The direct ELISA, assesses the immunoglobulin G (IgG) response (both antibodies), that might be used as a technique to manage the large volume of samples [Reference Dessy56].

On the other hand, the immune response to HPV infection (mainly IgG) is generally weak and heterogeneous among women. Around 50% of the individuals serologically convert to the L1 protein of HPV6, 16 and 18, within 18 months [Reference Carter57]. Conversely, it signifies that more than 40% of women do not seroconvert over time, therefore, the HPV L1 capsid-specific antibody is not an important diagnostic test for this infection. Other HPV antigens (E1, E2, E6 and L2) do not resemble any responses in patients with HPV infection [Reference Mariani and Venuti58]. But, HPV vaccines are based on recombinant virus-like particles (VLPs). These vaccines are highly immunogenic; induce very high titres of neutralising antibodies and represent durable responses. This might be due to VLPs since its ordered structure which permits the presentation of epitopes to B-cells for potent activation [Reference Wang and Roden59].

The challenge would be demonstrating that L1 gene expressed via a recombinant virus and the L1 protein produced largely and self-assembled into the VLP or the empty capsid almost identical to the native virion. These VLPs generate neutralising antibodies in animal models and these were protected against a virus challenge [Reference Stanley60].

Strengths and limitations of the review

The advantages of this systematic review include: following standardised methods, according to Cochrane collaboration and PRISMA guidelines and the wide-ranging search to identify data about both clinical and immunological outcomes.

Although we had a lot of studies, most of our limitations were regarding available data for the vaccines across the studies. Additionally, we found differences in study design and methods to assess specific efficacy endpoints and immune responses [Reference Einstein61].

On the other hand, we found high statistical heterogeneity and different issues regarding the risk of bias, mainly for not having enough information to evaluate the effect. However, some studies had a high risk of bias regarding blinding and attrition bias. All studies were industry-funded; therefore, this might lead to an unclear risk of bias.

Implications for policy and research

Hence, this is the first step to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccines against HPV. According to these findings, the vaccines reduce the risk of having the genotype that they were designed for. However, we need to go further, assessing the efficacy to reduce the risk of cancer. Although they were statistically valid, the risk reduction was not high (1–10%) compared with the general chance of not receiving intervention. Therefore, it is essential to consider this when decision-making in public health.

Another interesting data for public health is that there were similar adverse effects in both groups (vaccine vs. no intervention), therefore, even if risk reduction was not high, there were no increase of adverse effects in vaccinated people.

Conclusions

There was a reduction in the prevalence of HPV16, HPV18 and HPV16/18 genotypes when applying the bivalent vaccine, with no increase in adverse effects. Regarding the tetravalent vaccine, we found a reduction in the prevalence of HPV6, HPV11, HPV16 and HPV18 genotypes against placebo/no intervention, with no increase in adverse effects.

We suggest describing better and establishing measures to prevent attrition bias in RCTs regarding this critical issue.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268818003679

Author ORCIDs

Herney Andrés García-Perdomo, 0000-0001-6945-8261

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Colciencias (Grant 110665741213).

Financial support

None.

Ethical standards

This systematic review and meta-analysis accomplishes all the ethics requirements according to Helsinki declaration and all international statements.

References

1.Lowy, DRD (2016) HPV vaccination to prevent cervical cancer and other HPV-associated disease: from basic science to effective interventions. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 126, 511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Joura, EA et al. (2015) A 9-valent HPV vaccine against infection and intraepithelial neoplasia in women. New England Journal of Medicine 372, 711723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Wang, CJ and Palefsky, JM (2015) Human papillomavirus (HPV) infections and the importance of HPV vaccination. Current Epidemiology Reports 2, 101109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Kessels, SJM et al. (2012) Factors associated with HPV vaccine uptake in teenage girls: a systematic review. Vaccine 30, 35463556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Lopalco, P (2016) Spotlight on the 9-valent HPV vaccine. Drug Design, Development and Therapy 11, 3544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Pomfret, TC, Gagnon, JM Jr. and Gilchrist, AT (2011) Quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine: a review of safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomics. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics 36, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Bonanni, P et al. (2011) An overview on the implementation of HPV vaccination in Europe. Human Vaccines 7, 128135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Paavonen, J et al. (2009) Efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by oncogenic HPV types (PATRICIA): final analysis of a double-blind, randomised study in young women. The Lancet 374, 301314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Gattoc, L, Nair, N and Ault, K (2013) Human papillomavirus vaccination. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 40, 177197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Markowitz, LE et al. (2007) Quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 56, 124.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Skinner, SR and Cooper Robbins, SC (2010) Voluntary school-based human papillomavirus vaccination: an efficient and acceptable model for achieving high vaccine coverage in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 47, 215218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Dorleans, F et al. (2010) The current state of introduction of human papillomavirus vaccination into national immunisation schedules in Europe: first results of the VENICE2 2010 survey. Euro Surveillance: Bulletin Europeen sur les Maladies Transmissibles = European Communicable Disease Bulletin 15, 1017.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Szarewski, A (2010) HPV vaccine: Cervarix. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 10, 477487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Arbyn, M et al. (2018) Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD009069. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Higgins, J and Green, S (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration.Google Scholar
16.Moher, D et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine 6, 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Higgins, J, Altman, D and Gotzshe, P (2011) The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ British Medical Journal 343, d5928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. R Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
19.Kim, YJ et al. (2010) Vaccination with a human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted cervical cancer vaccine in Korean girls aged 10–14 years. Journal of Korean Medical Science 25, 11971204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Harper, DM et al. (2006) 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. The Lancet 367, 12471255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Kang, S et al. (2008) Safety and immunogenicity of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus types 6, 11, 16 and 18: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 176 Korean subjects. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 18, 10131019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Reisinger, KS et al. (2007) Safety and persistent immunogenicity of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus types 6, 11, 16, 18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine in preadolescents and adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 26, 201209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Levin, MJ et al. (2010) Safety and immunogenicity of a quadrivalent human papillomaviru (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) vaccine in HIV-infected children 7 to 12 years old. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 55, 197204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Giuliano, A et al. (2011) Efficacy of Quadrivalent HPV vaccine against HPV infection and disease in males. New England Journal of Medicine 364, 401411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Muñoz, N et al. (2009) Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, 18) recombinant vaccine in women aged 24–45 years: a randomised, double-blind trial. The Lancet 373, 19491957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Castellsagué, X et al. (2011) End-of-study safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of quadrivalent HPV (types 6, 11, 16, 18) recombinant vaccine in adult women 24–45 years of age. British Journal of Cancer 105, 2837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Villa, LL et al. (2006) 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. British Journal of Cancer 95, 14591466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Villa, LL et al. (2005) 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. The Lancet Oncology 6, 271278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Rivera Medina, DM et al. (2010) Safety and immunogenicity of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine: a randomized, controlled trial in adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent Health 46, 414421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Vesikari, T et al. (2015) A randomized, double-blind, phase III study of the immunogenicity and safety of a 9-valent human papillomavirus L1 virus-like particle vaccine (V503) versus Gardasil® in 9-15-year-old girls. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 34, 992998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Konno, R et al. (2010) Efficacy of human papillomavirus type 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in Japanese women aged 20 to 25 years. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 20, 847855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Lehtinen, M et al. (2016) Safety of the human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in adolescents aged 12–15 years: interim analysis of a large community-randomized controlled trial. Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics 12, 31773185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Moreira, ED et al. (2011) Safety and reactogenicity of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, 18) L1 viral-like-particle vaccine in older adolescents and young adults. Human Vaccines 7, 768775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Salif Sow, P et al. (2013) Safety and immunogenicity of human papillomavirus-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine: a randomized trial in 10–25-year-old HIV-seronegative African girls and young women. Journal of Infectious Diseases 207, 17531763.Google Scholar
35.Wheeler, CM et al. (2008) Safety and immunogenicity of co-administered quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV)-6/11/16/18 L1 virus-like particle (VLP) and hepatitis B (HBV) vaccines. Vaccine 26, 686696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Herrero, R et al. (2013) Reduced prevalence of oral human papillomavirus (HPV) 4 years after bivalent HPV vaccination in a randomized clinical trial in Costa Rica. PLoS ONE 8, e68329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Beachler, DC et al. (2016) Multisite HPV16/18 vaccine efficacy against cervical, anal, and oral HPV infection. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 108, djv302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Hildesheim, A et al. (2014) Efficacy of the HPV-16/18 vaccine: final according to protocol results from the blinded phase of the randomized Costa Rica HPV-16/18 vaccine trial. Vaccine 32, 50875097.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Herrero, R et al. (2011) Prevention of persistent human papillomavirus infection by an HPV16/18 vaccine: a community-based randomized clinical trial in Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Cancer Discovery 1, 408419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Lazcano-Ponce, E et al. (2009) Impact of a quadrivalent HPV6/11/16/18 vaccine in Mexican women: public health implications for the region. Archives of Medical Research 40, 514524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Kim, SC et al. (2011) Human papillomavirus 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted cervical cancer vaccine: immunogenicity and safety in 15–25 years old healthy Korean women. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 22, 6775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Mugo, N et al. (2015) Evaluation of safety and immunogenicity of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in healthy females between 9 and 26 years of age in Sub-Saharan Africa. Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics 11, 13231330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43.Wheeler, CM et al. (2016) Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the human papillomavirus 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in women older than 25 years: 7-year follow-up of the phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled VIVIANE study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 16, 11541168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44.Zhu, F-C et al. (2014) Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in healthy Chinese women aged 18–25 years: results from a randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Cancer 135, 26122622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Olsson, S-E et al. (2007) Induction of immune memory following administration of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6/11/16/18 L1 virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine. Vaccine 25, 49314939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46.Apter, D et al. (2015) Efficacy of human papillomavirus 16 and 18 (HPV-16/18) AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer in young women: final event-driven analysis of the randomized, double-blind PATRICIA trial. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 22, 361373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Szarewski, A et al. (2012) Efficacy of the human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in women aged 15–25 years with and without serological evidence of previous exposure to HPV-16/18. International Journal of Cancer 131, 106116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48.Palmroth, J et al. (2012) Occurrence of vaccine and non-vaccine human papillomavirus types in adolescent Finnish females 4 years post-vaccination. International Journal of Cancer 131, 28322838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49.Toft, L et al. (2014) Comparison of the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of Cervarix and Gardasil human papillomavirus vaccines in HIV-infected adults: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Journal of Infectious Diseases 209, 11651173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50.Einstein, MH et al. (2014) Comparison of long-term immunogenicity and safety of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine and HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine in healthy women aged 18–45 years: end-of-study analysis of a phase III randomized trial. Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics 10, 34353445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51.Schmeink, CE et al. (2011) Co-administration of human papillomavirus-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine with hepatitis B vaccine: randomized study in healthy girls. Vaccine 29, 92769283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52.Konno, R et al. (2014) Efficacy of the human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical infection in young Japanese women. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 10, 17811794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53.Naud, P et al. (2014) Sustained efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine final analysis of a long-term follow-up study up to 9.4 years. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 10, 21472162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54.Lim, BK et al. (2014) Immunogenicity and safety of the AS04-adjuvanted human papillomavirus-16/18 cervical cancer vaccine in Malaysian women aged 18–35 years: a randomized controlled trial. The Medical Journal of Malaysia 69, 28.Google ScholarPubMed
55.Pagliusi, SR et al. (2006) Chapter 23: international standard reagents for harmonization of HPV serology and DNA assays – an update. Vaccine 24, S193S200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56.Dessy, FJ et al. (2008) Correlation between direct ELISA, single epitope-based inhibition ELISA and Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay for measuring anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibody response after vaccination with the AS04-adjuvanted HPV-16/18 cervical cancer vaccine. Human Vaccines 4, 425434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57.Carter, JJ et al. (2000) Comparison of human papillomavirus types 16, 18, and 6 capsid antibody responses following incident infection. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 181, 19111919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58.Mariani, L and Venuti, A (2010) HPV vaccine: an overview of immune response, clinical protection, and new approaches for the future. Journal of Translational Medicine 8, 105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59.Wang, JW and Roden, RB (2013) Virus-like particles for the prevention of human papillomavirus-associated malignancies. Expert Review of Vaccines 12, 129141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60.Stanley, M (2006) Prophylactic HPV vaccines. Journal of Clinical Pathology 60, 961965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61.Einstein, MH et al. (2009) Comparison of the immunogenicity and safety of Cervarix™ and Gardasil® human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer vaccines in healthy women aged 18–45 years. Human Vaccines 5, 705719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

García-Perdomo supplementary material

García-Perdomo supplementary material 1

File 62 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 151
Total number of PDF views: 741 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th March 2019 - 27th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access
Open access
Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-2qp9q Total loading time: 0.817 Render date: 2021-01-27T00:56:40.257Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "1", "openAccess": "1", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The effectiveness of vaccination to prevent the papillomavirus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The effectiveness of vaccination to prevent the papillomavirus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The effectiveness of vaccination to prevent the papillomavirus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *