ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2026
Potential Impact of Catch-Up HPV Vaccination on HPV Prevalence and Cervical Cancer Incidence Among Women Living With HIV in South Africa: Results From Two Mathematical Models.
Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Towards Elimination of Sexually Transmitted Infections: Research Developments and Vaccine Uptake.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWomen living with HIV (WLHIV) face an increased risk of cervical cancer (CC). With inequitable human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine access globally and a programmatic focus on girls-only school-based delivery, many WLHIV in high HIV prevalence countries remain vulnerable to HPV and CC. We assessed the incremental impact of adding catch-up vaccination for WLHIV in South Africa.
methodsWe used two independently developed HPV/CC and HIV transmission models to predict the incremental impact of catch-up HPV vaccination for WLHIV compared to routine-only vaccination of girls aged 9-14 (90% cohort coverage) from 2020 onwards using a nonavalent vaccine (lifelong 100% protection). We assessed catch-up scenarios vaccinating WLHIV aged 15-24 or ≥15 (attaining 90% cohort coverage), maintaining baseline CC screening. We report the predicted median annual prevalence of vaccine-type high-risk HPV (VT HR-HPV), CC incidence and cumulative fraction of CC cases averted compared to routine-only vaccination among WLHIV overall (age-standardized) and by age.
resultsWith routine-only vaccination, overall coverage among all WLHIV remained substantially (>50%) lower than in all women for 35-40 years, with gaps persisting even after 80 years. Adding catch-up vaccination for WLHIV aged 15-24 increased coverage and benefits mainly among young WLHIV, with the largest annual reductions (relative to routine-only vaccination) in VT HR-HPV prevalence and CC incidence for WLHIV <30 years, reaching up to 36%-52% across models within 15 years and 38%-100% after 15-25 years, respectively. If catch-up included WLHIV aged ≥15, overall vaccination coverage among WLHIV would immediately increase to 90%, extending benefits to older WLHIV-reducing peak annual relative reductions in CC incidence among WLHIV ≥50 by an extra 19% points compared to catch-up vaccination of WLHIV aged 15-24, and shifting the peak 25 years earlier. Over 55-60 years, catch-up vaccination of WLHIV aged 15-24 and ≥15 could avert up to 3%-8% and 14% of CC cases among WLHIV, respectively.
conclusionsCatch-up vaccination of WLHIV can reduce their CC burden in the short to medium term, even in the presence of girls-only routine vaccination programmes with high cohort coverage. To maximize impact, vaccines should be offered to WLHIV of all ages, not only younger women.
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.