4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Cross-protective vaccine efficacy of the bivalent HPV vaccine against HPV31 is associated with humoral immune responses Results from the Costa Rica vaccine trial

期刊

HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 1399-1406

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.4161/hv.24340

关键词

HPV vaccine; humoral; immune response; cross-protection; mechanisms for protection

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Health
  2. National Cancer Institute
  3. intramural National Cancer Institute
  4. National Institute of Health's Office of Research on Women's Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background:We investigated the role of antibody responses as potential mechanism for the cross-protective vaccine-efficacies (VE) observed from randomized clinical trials of the HPV16/18 bivalent vaccine. Results:HPV31 cases had lower HPV16 antibody levels than controls (OR4th quartile compared with 1st quartile = 0.63; 95%CI: 0.36-1.08; p-trend = 0.03). HPV31 cases were also less likely to have detectable HPV31 neutralization, and HPV16 avidity than controls. No statistically significant differences by HPV18 antibody or HPV45 neutralization were observed among HPV45 cases and controls. Protection against HPV58 was not associated with any of the markers, confirming the specificity of our findings. Methods:Samples are from three-dose HPV vaccine recipients from the Costa Rica HPV16/18 vaccine trial. Women with a new HPV31, HPV45, or HPV58 infections over four years of follow-up were compared with randomly selected control womenwith no new infection with HPV31/45/58with respect to HPV16 and HPV18 antibody, HPV31, HPV45, and HPV58 neutralization, and HPV16 avidity. Conclusions:High HPV16 levels and avidity, and the ability to neutralize HPV31 were associated with protection against newly detected HPV31 infections, suggesting that the partial VE demonstrated for HPV31 is likely to be mediated at least in part through antibodies induced by HPV16/18 vaccination.

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

4.5
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