Effectiveness, immunogenicity, and safety of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine in women and men aged 27–45 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among women aged 27-45 years, the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (qHPV; HPV6/11/16/18) vaccine was generally well tolerated, efficacious, and immunogenic in the placebo-controlled FUTURE III study (NCT00090220; n = 3253). The qHPV vaccine was also generally well tolerated and highly immunogenic in men aged 27-45 years who participated in the single-cohort mid-adult male (MAM) study (NCT01432574; n = 150). Here, we report results of a long-term follow up (LTFU) extension of FUTURE III with up to 10 years follow-up. To understand the relevance of the mid-adult women LTFU study in the context of mid-adult men vaccination, we report results from post-hoc, cross-study immunogenicity analyses conducted to compare immunogenicity (geometric mean titers; GMTs) at 1-month post-qHPV vaccine dose 3 in women and men aged 27-45 years versus women and men aged 16-26 years from prior efficacy studies. The qHPV vaccine demonstrated durable protection against the combined endpoint of HPV6/11/16/18-related high-grade cervical dysplasia and genital warts up to 10 years (median 8.9) post-dose 3 and sustained HPV6/11/16/18 antibody responses through approximately 10 years in women aged 27-45 years. Efficacy of qHPV vaccine in men aged 27-45 years was inferred based on the cross-study analysis of qHPV vaccine immunogenicity demonstrating non-inferior HPV6/11/16/18 antibody responses in men aged 27-45 years versus 16-26 years. In conclusion, durable effectiveness of the qHPV vaccine was demonstrated in women 27-45 years of age, and vaccine efficacy was inferred in men 27-45 years of age based on the serological results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".