Final analysis of a 14-year long-term follow-up study of the effectiveness and immunogenicity of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in women from four nordic countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The quadrivalent human papillomavirus (qHPV) vaccine prevented vaccine HPV type-related infection and disease in young women in the 4-year FUTURE II efficacy study (NCT00092534). We report long-term effectiveness and immunogenicity at the end of 14 years of follow-up after enrollment in FUTURE II. METHODS: Young women (16-23 years of age) from Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden who received three qHPV vaccine doses during the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled FUTURE II base study were followed for effectiveness for an additional ≥10 years through national registries. Tissue samples including but not limited to those collected during organized cervical cancer screening programs were obtained from regional biobanks to be adjudicated for histopathology diagnosis and tested for HPV DNA. The observed incidence of HPV16/18-related high-grade cervical dysplasia (primary outcome) was compared with recent historical background incidence rates in an unvaccinated population. Serum was collected at years 9 and 14 to assess antibody responses. FINDINGS: = 2121; 24,099·0 person-years of follow-up) during the entire study. Vaccine effectiveness of 100% (95% CI 94·7-100) was demonstrated for ≥12 years, with a trend toward continued protection through 14 years post-vaccination. Seropositivity rates at study conclusion were >90% (HPV6/11/16) and 52% (HPV18) using competitive Luminex immunoassay, and >90% (all four HPV types) using the more sensitive IgG Luminex immunoassay. INTERPRETATION: Vaccination of young women with qHPV vaccine offers durable protection against HPV16/18-related high-grade cervical dysplasia for ≥12 years, with a trend toward continued protection through 14 years post-vaccination, and induces sustained HPV6/11/16/18 antibody responses for up to 14 years post-vaccination. There was no evidence of waning immunity, suggesting no need for a booster dose during that period. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".