Comparison of long-term immunogenicity and safety of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine and HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine in healthy women aged 18-45 years: End-of-study analysis of a Phase III randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The observer-blind, randomized, age-stratified, head-to-head study (NCT00423046) comparing immunogenicity and safety of HPV-16/18 and HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccines in healthy women aged 18-45 y was completed. Five y after vaccination, in subjects from the Month 60 according-to-protocol cohort (seronegative and DNA negative for HPV type analyzed at baseline), serum neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses induced by HPV-16/18 vaccine remained 7.8-fold (18-26-y stratum), 5.6-fold (27-35-y stratum) and 2.3-fold (36-45-y stratum) higher than those induced by HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine for HPV-16. For HPV-18, the fold differences were 12.1, 13.0 and 7.8, respectively. At Month 60, all (100%) subjects in HPV-16/18 vaccine group and the majority (95.7%-97.5%) in HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine group were seropositive for HPV-16. For HPV-18, the majority (98.1%-100%) of subjects in HPV-16/18 vaccine group were seropositive; however, seropositivity rates in HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine group decreased considerably (61.1%-76.9%) across the 3 age strata. In the total vaccinated cohort (received ≥1 dose regardless of baseline HPV serostatus and DNA status), geometric mean titers for anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 nAb were higher in HPV-16/18 vaccine group than in HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine group. Based on the 5-y data, piece-wise and modified power-law models predicted a longer durability of nAb response for HPV-16/18 vaccine compared to HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine. Beyond the differences apparent between the vaccines in terms of immunogenicity and modeled persistence of antibody responses, comparative studies including clinical endpoints would be needed to determine whether differences exist in duration of vaccine-induced protection.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".