Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39705286›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

Understanding human papillomavirus vaccine response and efficacy in people living with HIV: A systematic mixed studies review and meta-analysis.

Alvine M Akumbom, Alanna J Bergman, Howard Strickler, Chakra Budhathoki, Manka Nkimbeng, Raeven Grant, Nancy R Reynolds, Kawsar R Talaat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Alvine M AkumbomCenter for Infectious Disease and Nursing Innovation, Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6689-1104
Alanna J BergmanUniversity of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1474-7765
Howard StricklerDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, United States of America.
Chakra BudhathokiCenter for Infectious Disease and Nursing Innovation, Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Manka NkimbengDivision of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7414-921X
Raeven GrantDavid Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9624-4389
Nancy R ReynoldsCenter for Infectious Disease and Nursing Innovation, Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Kawsar R TalaatDepartment of International Health, Center for Immunization Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4899-6260

Funding

Minnesota Population Center Science and Technical CoreP2CHD041023 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI THERESA LOUISE OSYPUK · 2016 to 2026
$4.3M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coinfection with human papillomavirus (HPV) and HIV compounds the risks of developing cervical, anal, and HPV-associated oral neoplasia. Safe prophylactic vaccines are available to prevent HPV infections in people with HIV(PWH). Yet, vaccine efficacy and duration of protection remain questionable. Historically, the efficacy of vaccines has been suboptimal in PWH compared to people without HIV (PWoH).A systematic review of HPV vaccine trials in PWH was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes of interest were vaccine efficacy, immunogenicity, and predictors of HPV vaccine efficacy. A secondary outcome was to assess age and sex differences. Efficacy was reviewed as cervical/anal/oral lesions or neoplasia, and incident or persistent HPV infection following vaccination. A random effects meta-analysis was performed comparing geometric mean titer (GMT) in PWH to PWoH. Twenty-eight studies out of 988 were eligible for inclusion in our study, and qualitatively synthesized. Eight of these studies were meta-analyzed. GMT results of HPV16 and HPV18 genotypes were significantly lower in PWH; Hedges's g -0.434 (95% CI: -0.823, -0.046) and Hedges's g -0.57 (95% CI: -0.72, -0.43), respectively. The mean difference in GMT for HPV18 between PWH and PWoH was -536.23 (95% CI: -830.66, -241.81); approximately 22 times higher than HPV18 seropositivity cut-offs, assuming milli-Merck Units per milliliter. Risk factors for incident or persistent infections in PWH included: failure to seroconvert after vaccination, baseline CD4+ T-cell count <500 cells/mm3, early age of sexual debut, HIV viral load ≥ 400 copies/mL. There was a trend towards decreased HPV vaccine efficacy in studies that included enrollees with a history of AIDS or AIDS-defining illness.Applying existing evidence of HPV vaccine efficacy on meaningful clinical outcomes in PWH is questionable. This could be influenced by the diversity of eligibility criteria across clinical trials of HPV vaccine efficacy. Precision medicine may offer novel alternatives for evaluating HPV vaccine efficacy in PWH.

Identifiers

PMID39705286
PMCPMC11661617

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.