4.6 Article

Type-Specific Human Papillomavirus Biological Features: Validated Model-Based Estimates

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081171

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community [242061]
  2. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1053353]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infection with high-risk (hr) human papillomavirus (HPV) is considered the necessary cause of cervical cancer. Vaccination against HPV16 and 18 types, which are responsible of about 75% of cervical cancer worldwide, is expected to have a major global impact on cervical cancer occurrence. Valid estimates of the parameters that regulate the natural history of hrHPV infections are crucial to draw reliable projections of the impact of vaccination. We devised a mathematical model to estimate the probability of infection transmission, the rate of clearance, and the patterns of immune response following the clearance of infection of 13 hrHPV types. To test the validity of our estimates, we fitted the same transmission model to two large independent datasets from Italy and Sweden and assessed finding consistency. The two populations, both unvaccinated, differed substantially by sexual behaviour, age distribution, and study setting (screening for cervical cancer or Chlamydia trachomatis infection). Estimated transmission probability of hrHPV types (80% for HPV16, 73%-82% for HPV18, and above 50% for most other types); clearance rates decreasing as a function of time since infection; and partial protection against re-infection with the same hrHPV type (approximately 20% for HPV16 and 50% for the other types) were similar in the two countries. The model could accurately predict the HPV16 prevalence observed in Italy among women who were not infected three years before. In conclusion, our models inform on biological parameters that cannot at the moment be measured directly from any empirical data but are essential to forecast the impact of HPV vaccination programmes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据