Effect of different human papillomavirus serological and DNA criteria on vaccine efficacy estimates

RCT OA: closed Public-Domain
📄 Open PDF View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-11 ⓘ

This study simulated HPV-naïve subcohorts to assess how differing serological and DNA criteria affected vaccine efficacy estimates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, finding that methodological variations did not fully explain the observed differences in efficacy results.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Two trials of clinically approved human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease (FUTURE I/II) and the Papilloma Trial Against Cancer in Young Adults (PATRICIA), reported a 22% difference in vaccine efficacy (VE) against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse in HPV-naïve subcohorts; however, serological testing methods and the HPV DNA criteria used to define HPV-unexposed women differed between the studies. We applied previously described methods to simulate these HPV-naïve subcohorts within the Costa Rica HPV16/18 Vaccine Trial and assessed how these criteria affect the estimation of VE. We applied 2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) thresholds for HPV16 and HPV18 seropositivity (8 and 7 ELISA units/mL, respectively, for PATRICIA; 54 and 65 ELISA units/mL, respectively, for FUTURE I/II (to approximate the competitive Luminex immunoassay)) and 2 criteria for HPV DNA positivity (12 oncogenic HPV types, plus HPV66 and 68/73 for PATRICIA; or plus HPV6 and 11 for FUTURE I/II). VE was computed in the 2 naïve subcohorts. Using the FUTURE I/II and PATRICIA criteria, VE estimates against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, regardless of HPV type, were 69.0% (95% confidence interval: 40.3%, 84.9%) and 80.8% (95% confidence interval: 52.6%, 93.5%), respectively (P = 0.1). Although the application of FUTURE I/II criteria to our cohort resulted in the inclusion of more sexually experienced women, methodological differences did not fully explain the VE differences.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

MeSH descriptors

Papillomaviridae Papillomaviridae Papillomavirus Infections Papillomavirus Vaccines Serologic Tests Uterine Cervical Dysplasia Uterine Cervical Neoplasms Adolescent Adult Antibodies, Viral Antibodies, Viral DNA, Viral DNA, Viral Double-Blind Method Female Human papillomavirus 16 Human papillomavirus 16 Human papillomavirus 16 Human papillomavirus 18 Human papillomavirus 18

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-18T09:30:06.152893+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:14:10.100512+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-22T02:00:06.705733+00:00
License: Public-Domain