MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289515982 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101585

Immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of the HPV vaccines among people living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4289515982 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lisa Staadegaard, Minttu M. Rönn, Nirali Soni, Meghan Bellerose, Paul Bloem, Marc Brisson, Mathieu Maheu‐Giroux, Ruanne V. Barnabas, Mélanie Drolet, Philippe Mayaud, Shona Dalal, Marie‐Claude Boily

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinneapolis Medical Research FoundationForeign, Commonwealth and Development OfficeBill and Melinda Gates FoundationEuropean CommissionWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineImmunogenicityMeta-analysisHPV vaccinesConfidence intervalVaccinationInternal medicineClinical trialVaccine efficacyAdverse effectImmunologyCervical cancerAntibodyHPV infectionCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Vaccines have been demonstrated to protect against high-risk human papillomavirus infection (HPV), including HPV-16/18, and cervical lesions among HIV negative women. However, their efficacy remains uncertain for people living with HIV (PLHIV).We systematically reviewed available evidence on HPV vaccine on immunological, virological, or other biological outcomes in PLHIV. Methods: We searched five electronic databases (PubMed, Medline and Embase, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO clinical trial database) for longitudinal prospective studies reporting immunogenicity, virological, cytological, histological, clinical or safety endpoints following prophylactic HPV vaccination among PLHIV. We included studies published by February 11th, 2021. We summarized results, assessed study quality, and conducted meta-analysis and subgroup analyses, where possible. Findings: =3) among HIV-negative historical controls. Evidence suggests that the seropositivity after vaccination declines over time but it can lasts at least 2-4 years. The vaccines were deemed safe among PLHIV with few serious adverse events. Evidence of HPV vaccine efficacy against acquisition of HPV infection and/or associated disease from the eight trials available was inconclusive due to the low quality. Interpretation: PLHIV have a robust and safe immune response to HPV vaccination. Antibody titers and seropositivity rates decline over time but remain high. The lack of a formal correlate of protection and efficacy results preclude definitive conclusions on the clinical benefits. Nevertheless, given the burden of HPV disease in PLHIV, although the protection may be shorter or less robust against HPV-18, the robust immune response suggests that PLHIV may benefit from receiving HPV vaccination after acquiring HIV. Better quality studies are needed to demonstrate the clinical efficacy among PLHIV. Funding: World Health Organization. MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, UK Medical Research Council (MRC).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.036
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207