Cited by 301Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchGenital Health and DiseaseReproductive tract infections research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of herd immunity and cross-protection after a human papillomavirus vaccination programme in Australia: a repeat cross-sectional study

Open access

Abstract

Background After the introduction of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme in Australia in April, 2007, we measured the prevalence of vaccine-targeted and closely related HPV types with the aim of assessing direct protection, cross-protection, and herd immunity.Methods In this repeat cross-sectional study, we recruited women aged 18-24 years who attended Pap screening between October, 2005, and July, 2007, in three major metropolitan areas of Australia to form our prevaccine-implementation sample. For our postvaccine-implementation sample, we recruited women aged 18-24 years who attended Pap screening in the same three metropolitan areas from August, 2010, to November, 2012. We compared the crude prevalence of HPV genotypes in cervical specimens between the prevaccine and the postvaccine implementation groups, with vaccination status validated against the National HPV Vaccination Program Register. We estimated adjusted prevalence ratios using log linear regression. We estimated vaccine effectiveness both for vaccine-targeted HPV types (16, 18, 6, and 11) and non-vaccine but related HPV types (31, 33, and 45).Findings 202 women were recruited into the prevaccine-implementation group, and 1058 were recruited into the postvaccine-implementation group. Crude prevalence of vaccine-targeted HPV genotypes was significantly lower in the postvaccine-implementation sample than in the prevaccine-implementation sample (58 [29%] of 202 vs 69 [7%] of 1058; p<0·0001). Compared with the prevaccine-implementation sample, adjusted prevalence ratios for vaccine-targeted HPV genotypes were 0·07 (95% CI 0·04-0·14; p<0·0001) in fully vaccinated women and 0·65 (0·43-0·96; p=0·03) in unvaccinated women, which suggests herd immunity. No significant declines were noted for non-vaccine-targeted HPV genotypes. However, within the postvaccine-implementation sample, adjusted vaccine effectiveness against vaccine-targeted HPV types for fully vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women was 86% (95% CI 71-93), and was 58% (26-76) against non-vaccine-targeted but related genotypes (HPV 31, 33, and 45).Interpretation 6 years after the initiation of the Australian HPV vaccination programme, we have detected a substantial fall in vaccine-targeted HPV genotypes in vaccinated women; a lower prevalence of vaccine-targeted types in unvaccinated women, suggesting herd immunity; and a possible indication of cross-protection against HPV types related to the vaccine-targeted types in vaccinated women.Funding Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Cancer Council Victoria.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1473-3099(14)70841-2

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • HPV vaccination was subsequently found to also provide protection against HPV infection in heterosexual boys through herd immunity.

    “it was subsequently found to also provide protection against HPV infection in heterosexual boys through herd immunity”
  • HPV vaccination led to a marked reduction in the total HPV burden in the population.

    “which led to a marked reduction in the total HPV burden in the population59,60.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tabrizi, S. N., Brotherton, J. M. L., Kaldor, J. M., Skinner, S. R., Liu, B., Bateson, D., McNamee, K., Garefalakis, M., Phillips, S., Cummins, E., Malloy, M., & Garland, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Royal Children's Hospital (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Family Planning NSW (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Royal Women's Hospital (AU)
  • Australian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer (AU)
Corresponding author
Tabrizi, Sepehr N
Venue
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
14
Issue
10
Pages
958-966
ISSN
1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2125054141
Cited by
301
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 7
FWCI
27.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2014-10-01)
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Genital Health and Disease
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
Keywords
HPV vaccination, herd immunity, cross-protection, quadrivalent HPV vaccine, HPV prevalence, vaccine effectiveness, young women, Pap smear screening, HPV 16/18
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Australia, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Genotype, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Vaccination, Prevalence, Papillomavirus Infections, Immunity, Herd, Alphapapillomavirus, Papillomavirus Vaccines, Young Adult, Cross Protection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review