4.7 Article

Substantial Decline in Prevalence of Vaccine-Type and Nonvaccine-Type Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Girls 5 Years After Implementing HPV Vaccine in Norway

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 218, 期 12, 页码 1900-1910

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiy432

关键词

human papillomavirus; HPV vaccine; immunization program; effectiveness; vaccine impact

资金

  1. NIPH
  2. Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. In 2009, quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was introduced in a school-based single-cohort program targeting 12-year-old girls in Norway. We estimated the impact of the Norwegian HPV immunization program. Methods. Three birth cohorts of 17-year-old girls, 2 nonvaccine-eligible cohorts (born 1994 or 1996) and 1 vaccine-eligible cohort (born 1997) were invited to deliver urine samples. The samples were analyzed for 37 HPV genotypes. HPV prevalence was compared between birth cohorts and between vaccinated and unvaccinated girls within and across birth cohorts after linkage to the Norwegian Immunisation Registry. Results. In total, 17 749 urine samples were analyzed. A 42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37%-47%) reduction in any HPV type and 81% (95% CI, 76%-85%) reduction in vaccine types (HPV-6/11/16/18) were observed in the vaccine-eligible cohort compared to the 1994 cohort. Vaccine types were reduced by 54% (95% CI, 39%-66%) and 90% (95% CI, 86%-92%) in unvaccinated and vaccinated girls, respectively, from the 1997 cohort, compared with unvaccinated girls born in 1994. A significant reduction was also observed for several nonvaccine types. Vaccine-type prevalence was reduced by 77% (95% CI, 65%-85%) in vaccinated compared with unvaccinated girls from the 1997 cohort. Conclusions. In this largely HPV-naive population, we observed a substantial reduction in vaccine and nonvaccine types in vaccinated and unvaccinated girls following introduction of HPV 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

4.7
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