Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32975189›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

Imiquimod versus podophyllotoxin, with and without human papillomavirus vaccine, for anogenital warts: the HIPvac factorial RCT.

Richard Gilson, Diarmuid Nugent, Kate Bennett, Caroline J Doré, Macey L Murray, Jade Meadows, Lewis J Haddow, Charles Lacey, Frank Sandmann, Mark Jit and 5 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. [Skin manifestations of the external male genitals].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. 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

15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Richard GilsonUniversity College London Centre for Clinical Research in Infection and Sexual Health, Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9572-193X
Diarmuid NugentUniversity College London Centre for Clinical Research in Infection and Sexual Health, Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7417-8440
Kate BennettComprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2358-4497
Caroline J DoréComprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9796-4970
Macey L MurrayComprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6418-0854
Jade MeadowsComprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0337-5011
Lewis J HaddowUniversity College London Centre for Clinical Research in Infection and Sexual Health, Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3016-2986
Charles LaceyCentre for Immunology and Infection, Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9250-2638
Frank SandmannDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5641-1931
Mark JitDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6658-8255
Kate SoldanStatistics, Modelling and Economics Department, Public Health England, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0361-3174
Michelle TetlowComprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1064-3187
Emilia CaverlyComprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4420-713X
Mayura NathanHomerton Anogenital Neoplasia Service, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9123-7657
Andrew J CopasComprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8968-5963
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBCentral and North West London NHS Foundation Trust · GBPublic Health England · GBHomerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

Department of Health 11/129/187
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe comparative efficacy, and cost-effectiveness, of imiquimod or podophyllotoxin cream, either alone or in combination with the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil

objectiveThe objective was to compare the efficacy of imiquimod and podophyllotoxin creams to treat anogenital warts and to assess whether or not the addition of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine increases wart clearance or prevention of recurrence.

designA randomised, controlled, multicentre, partially blinded factorial trial. Participants were randomised equally to four groups, combining either topical treatment with quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by gender, a history of previous warts and human immunodeficiency virus status. There was an accompanying economic evaluation, conducted from the provider perspective over the trial duration.

settingThe setting was 22 sexual health clinics in England and Wales.

participantsParticipants were patients with a first or repeat episode of anogenital warts who had not been treated in the previous 3 months and had not previously received quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine.

interventionsParticipants were randomised to 5% imiquimod cream (Aldara

main outcome measuresThe main outcome measures were a combined primary outcome of wart clearance at week 16 and remaining wart free at week 48. Efficacy analysis was by logistic regression with multiple imputation for missing follow-up values; economic evaluation considered the costs per quality-adjusted life-year.

resultsA total of 503 participants were enrolled and attended at least one follow-up visit. The mean age was 31 years, 66% of participants were male (24% of males were men who have sex with men), 50% had a previous history of warts and 2% were living with human immunodeficiency virus. For the primary outcome, the adjusted odds ratio for imiquimod cream versus podophyllotoxin cream was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.23), and for quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine versus placebo, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.46 (95% confidence interval 0.97 to 2.20). For the components of the primary outcome, the adjusted odds ratio for wart free at week 16 for imiquimod versus podophyllotoxin was 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.14) and for quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine versus placebo was 1.30 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.91). The adjusted odds ratio for remaining wart free at 48 weeks (in those who were wart free at week 16) for imiquimod versus podophyllotoxin was 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.78) and for quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine versus placebo was 1.39 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 2.63). Podophyllotoxin plus quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine had inconclusive cost-effectiveness compared with podophyllotoxin alone. LIMITATIONS: Hepatitis A vaccine as control was replaced by a saline placebo in a non-identical syringe, administered by someone outside the research team, for logistical reasons. Sample size was reduced from 1000 to 500 because of slow recruitment and other delays.

conclusionsA benefit of the vaccine was not demonstrated in this trial. The odds of clearance at week 16 and remaining clear at week 48 were 46% higher with vaccine, and consistent effects were seen for both wart clearance and recurrence separately, but these differences were not statistically significant. Imiquimod and podophyllotoxin creams had similar efficacy for wart clearance, but with a wide confidence interval. The trial results do not support earlier evidence of a lower recurrence with use of imiquimod than with use of podophyllotoxin. Podophyllotoxin without quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine is the most cost-effective strategy at the current vaccine list price. A further larger trial is needed to definitively investigate the effect of the vaccine; studies of the immune response in vaccine recipients are needed to investigate the mechanism of action.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32729817 and EudraCT 2013-002951-14.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

Drug Therapy, CombinationPapillomavirus VaccinesAdjuvants, ImmunologicAdultCondylomata AcuminataEnglandFemaleHomosexuality, MaleHumansImiquimodKeratolytic AgentsMalePodophyllotoxinSecondary PreventionTreatment OutcomeWalesAdjuvants, ImmunologicImiquimodKeratolytic AgentsPapillomavirus VaccinesPodophyllotoxinANOGENITAL WARTSHUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUSIMIQUIMODPODOPHYLLOTOXINQUADRIVALENT HPV VACCINERANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Identifiers

PMID32975189
PMCPMC7548868
OpenAlexW3088579637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.