4.5 Article

Long-term HPV-specific immune response after one versus two and three doses of bivalent HPV vaccination in Dutch girls

Journal

VACCINE
Volume 37, Issue 49, Pages 7280-7288

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.09.066

Keywords

HPV; Vaccines; Immunology; Antibodies; B-cells; T-cells; Cytokines

Funding

  1. Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In view of further reduction of HPV vaccination schedules, gaining more insight into humoral and cellular immune responses after a single HPV vaccine is of great interest. Therefore, these responses were evaluated after different doses of the bivalent (2v) HPV-vaccine in girls. Methods: Blood was collected yearly up to seven years post-vaccination with one-, two- or three-doses of the 2vHPV vaccine (N = 890). HPV-type-specific IgG and IgA-antibody levels, IgG-isotypes and avidity indexes were measured by a virus-like-particle-based multiplex-immuno-assay for two vaccine and five non-vaccine HPV types. HPV-type-specific memory B-cell numbers- and T-cell cytokine responses were determined in a subpopulation. Results: HPV-type-specific antibody concentrations were significantly lower in one- than in two- and three-dose vaccinated girls but remained stable over seven years. The lower antibody response coincided with reduced HPV-type-specific B- and T-cell responses. There were no differences in both the IgG subtypes and the avidity of the HPV16-specific antibodies between the groups. Conclusions: One-dose of the 2vHPV vaccine is immunogenic, but results in less B- and T-cell memory and considerable lower antibody responses when compared with more doses. Therefore, at least of some of girls receiving the one-dose of the vaccination might be at higher risk for waning immunity to HPV in the long-term. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available