Efficacy of human papillomavirus vaccines including cross protection : A review of recent evidence.
10.5468/kjog.2010.53.2.103
- Author:
Chan Joo KIM
1
;
Tae Chul PARK
;
Jong Sup PARK
Author Information
1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. jspark@catholic.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
Cervical cancer;
Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia;
HPV;
Vaccine;
Quadrivalent vaccine;
Bivalent vaccine;
Cross protection
- MeSH:
Adenocarcinoma;
Australia;
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia;
Cross Protection;
Female;
Human papillomavirus 16;
Human papillomavirus 18;
Humans;
Israel;
Korea;
Mass Screening;
Papillomavirus Vaccines;
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation;
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms;
Vaccination;
Vaccines
- From:Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
2010;53(2):103-118
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
The efficacy and immunogenicity of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines has proven excellent in several phase 2 and phase 3 trials involving tens of thousand women. Two versions of HPV vaccine had been developed, both target HPV 16 and HPV 18, which involve approximately 70% of cervical cancer. We have summarized the recent review of all randomized controlled trials in which vaccines against HPV were compared with placebo regarding efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Both vaccines have an excellent safety profile, are highly immunogenic, and have atributed complete type specific protection against persistent infection and associated lesions in fully vaccinated girls and young women. Data strongly suggest that both vaccines can have a variable level of cross protection against HPV types genetically and antigenically-closely related to vaccine types. Demonstration of cross protection against combined endpoints [cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 and adenocarcinoma in situ] for HPV-31 has been reached for the quadrivalent vaccine. Bivalent HPV vaccine showed significant type-specific cross-protection against CIN2+ associated with HPV-31, HPV-33, and HPV-45. The bivalent vaccine is also registered for above age 26 in Australia, Israel and Korea. In our country, we have already set up the clinical guideline of both vaccines. Although these prophylactic vaccination is likely to provide important gains in the prevention of cervical cancer, we should have need to establish the new screening guideline in post-vaccination period and to make next version of vaccination-guidelines related of specific subgroups of patients who would benefit from the vaccine (women older than 26 years, boys, and men).
