ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2016
Projected impact of Cervarix™ vaccination on oncogenic human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer in the United Kingdom.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Designing and Developing Vaccines, Drugs and Therapeutic Approaches to Counter Human Papilloma Virus.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Review
- Clarification on the impact of cervarix vaccination on human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer in the United Kingdom.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We developed a dynamic compartmental model to assess the impact of HPV Universal Mass Vaccination (UMV) with Cervarix™, which offers protection against HPV16/18 and cross-protection against other cancer-causing types, using up-to-date efficacy data. Analyses were performed in the UK because of the large amount of high quality epidemiological data available. For each HPV type/group of types considered, the model was calibrated to 14 epidemiological datasets (prevalence of HPV infection, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN): CIN1, CIN2, CIN3 pre-screening and cervical cancer (CC) incidence over 10 y post-screening). Impacts of cross-protection, female catch-up vaccination, and additional male vaccination on oncogenic infections, high-grade CIN (CIN2+) and CC were evaluated. Our results show that female UMV with 80% coverage and cross-protection against high-risk types resulted in 81% CIN2+ and 88% CC reductions vs. 57% and 75%, respectively, without cross-protection. Vaccinating 40% of males and 80% of females was equivalent to 90% female-only coverage regarding CIN2+ (87% and 87%, respectively) and CC (93% and 94%, respectively) reductions. Female-only coverage of 80% substantially reduced male HPV16 and 18 infection due to herd protection (74% and 89%, respectively). Increasing female coverage to 90% reduced HPV16 and HPV18 infections in males relatively similarly to 80% female combined with 40% male coverage. Model outcomes strengthen previous conclusions about the significant added value of Cervarix™ cross-protection for CC prevention, the primary HPV vaccination public health priority. Regarding female CC prevention and male HPV16/18 infection, small increases in female coverage induce similar benefits to those achieved by additionally vaccinating men with 40% coverage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.