4.6 Article

Epidemiologic Approaches to Evaluating the Potential for Human Papillomavirus Type Replacement Postvaccination

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 178, 期 4, 页码 625-634

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwt018

关键词

cervical cancer; human papillomavirus; HPV type replacement; vaccination

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CRN-83320]
  2. US National Institutes of Health [CA70269]
  3. Merck/Sanofi Pasteur MSD, a manufacturer of HPV vaccines
  4. Merck
  5. Roche Molecular Systems
  6. Digene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, 2 vaccines exist that prevent infection by the genotypes of human papillomavirus (HPV) responsible for approximately 70% of cervical cancer cases worldwide. Although vaccination is expected to reduce the prevalence of these HPV types, there is concern about the effect this could have on the distribution of other oncogenic types. According to basic ecological principles, if competition exists between >= 2 different HPV types for niche occupation during natural infection, elimination of 1 type may lead to an increase in other type(s). Here, we discuss this issue of type replacement and present different epidemiologic approaches for evaluation of HPV type competition. Briefly, these approaches involve: 1) calculation of the expected frequency of coinfection under independence between HPV types for comparison with observed frequency; 2) construction of hierarchical logistic regression models for each vaccine-targeted type; and 3) construction of Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models to evaluate sequential acquisition and clearance of HPV types according to baseline HPV status. We also discuss a related issue concerning diagnostic artifacts arising when multiple HPV types are present in specific samples (due to the inability of broad-spectrum assays to detect certain types present in lower concentrations). This may result in an apparent increase in previously undetected types postvaccination.

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