Phase II studies to select the formulation of a multivalent HPV L1 virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to develop a multivalent prophylactic HPV vaccine that protects against infection and disease caused by HPV16/18 (oncogenic types in existing prophylactic vaccines) plus additional oncogenic types by conducting 3 Phase II studies comparing the immunogenicity (i.e., anti-HPV6/11/16/18 geometric mean titers [GMT]) and safety of 7 vaccine candidates with the licensed quadrivalent HPV6/11/16/18 vaccine (qHPV vaccine) in young women ages 16-26. In the first study (Study 1), subjects received one of 3 dose formulations of an 8-valent HPV6/11/16/18/31/45/52/58 vaccine or qHPV vaccine (control). In Study 2, subjects received one of 3 dose formulations (termed low-, mid-, and high-dose formulations, respectively) of a 9-valent HPV6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58 vaccine (9vHPV vaccine) or qHPV vaccine (control). In Study 3, subjects concomitantly received qHPV vaccine plus 5-valent HPV31/33/45/52/58 or qHPV vaccine plus placebo (control). All vaccines were administered at day 1/month 2/month 6. In studies 1 and 3, anti-HPV6/11/16/18 GMTs at month 7 were non-inferior in the experimental arms compared with the control arm; however, there was a trend for lower antibody responses for all 4 HPV types. In Study 2, this immune interference was overcome with the mid- and high-dose formulations of the 9vHPV vaccine by increasing antigen and adjuvant doses. In all 3 studies, all vaccine candidates were strongly immunogenic with respect to HPV31/33/45/52/58 and were well tolerated. Based on the totality of the results, the middle dose formulation of the 9vHPV vaccine was selected for Phase III evaluation. Each 0.5mL dose contains 30μg/40μg/60μg/40μg/20μg/20μg/20μg/20μg/20μg of HPV6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58 virus-like particles, and 500μg of amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant.ClinicalTrials.gov numbers NCT00260039, NCT00543543, and NCT00551187.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".