The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Efficacy of a Bivalent L1 Virus-Like Particle Vaccine in Prevention of Infection With Human Papillomavirus Types 16 and 18 in Young Women: A Randomized Trial
Abstract
This double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted to assess the efficacy of a bivalent human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine in preventing cervical infection with HPV-16/18. The study participants were recruited among healthy women aged 15 to 25 years from 32 healthcare facilities in Brazil, Canada, and the United States. A total of 1113 women enrolled in the study. Enrollees had 6 or fewer lifetime sexual partners, no history of cervical abnormality, and were negative for high-risk HPV types. The subjects were randomized to receive placebo injections or the vaccine that contained 20 μg each of HPV-16 and HPV-18 virus-like particles. Women received 1 0.5-mL dose of vaccine or placebo at enrollment, 1 month, and 6 months. Cervical smears were taken at 6, 12, and 18 months. In addition, participants collected self-administered cervicovaginal samples at enrollment, 6 months, and every 3 months thereafter. Serologic testing for immunogenicity was performed at 0, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months. The women kept a diary of symptoms for 1 week after each injection, and symptoms were evaluated by telephone interview 1 month after each injection. Outcome results at 27 months were available for 81 women in the vaccine group and 59 in the placebo group. Study subject data were analyzed in two different cohorts. One analysis was performed including women who received all 3 injections and who had complete follow-up data. They comprised the ′according-to-protocol′ cohort (ATP). Another analysis was performed using data from the ′intention-to-treat′ cohort (ITT), which consisted of all enrolled participants who had at least one dose of vaccine or placebo and had any data available for analysis. There were 560 subjects randomized to receive vaccine and 553 randomized to receive placebo. The average age was 20 years. The two groups had similar patterns of risk factors for HPV infection. There were no cases of persistent HPV-16/18 among ATP women who received the vaccine. The vaccine was 100% effective against HPV-16, HPV-18, and HPV-16/18 (P < 0.0001). The effectiveness against HPV-18 infection was not significant until 27 months. In comparison, 13 (2.1%) women in the ATP group who received placebo developed a persistent HPV-16 infection, 4 (0.6%) had persistent HPV-18, and 16 (2.6%) had persistent HPV-16/18. In the ITT cohort, there were 4 women in the vaccine group who were positive for persistent HPV-16 (0.5%: efficacy 84.5%, P < 0.0001), 1 positive for persistent HPV-18 (0.1%: efficacy 91.1%, P = 0.003) and 4 with HPV-16/18 (0.5%: efficacy 87.5%, P < .0001). In the ITT placebo group, 25 women (3.2%) were positive for persistent HPV-16, 11 (1.4%) had persistent HPV-18, and 31 (4.0%) persistent HPV-16/18. Among the 560 women who received the vaccine, 2 developed cervical abnormalities associated with HPV types 16 or 18. One had atypical squamous cells of unknown significance (ASGUS) and 1 had a low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL). Of the 553 women who received placebo, 27 developed cervical abnormalities, including 15 ASCUS, 14 LSIL, and 1 high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). The vaccine had an efficacy of 95.2% against HPV-16 (P < 0.0001), 91.2% against HPV-18 (P = 0.003), and 92.9% against HPV-16/18 (P < 0.0001). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1 or 2 was seen in 7 women, including 1 CIN 1 in the vaccine group, and 3 each CIN 1 and CIN 2 in the placebo group.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Harper, D. M., Franco, E. L., Wheeler, C. M., Moscicki, A.-B., Romanowski, B., Roteli-Martins, C. M., Jenkins, D., Schuind, A., Costa Clemens, S. A., & Dubin, G. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68439-0 · Cited by 1,632
Self-citationImmune responses to human papillomavirus
Stanley, M. (2006) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.09.002 · Cited by 586
Roberts, J. N., Buck, C. B., Thompson, C. D., Kines, R., Bernardo, M., Choyke, P. L., Lowy, D. R., & Schiller, J. T. (2007) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm1598 · Cited by 503
Aguilar, J. C., & Rodríguez, E. G. (2007) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.01.111 · Cited by 494
Mao, C., Koutsky, L. A., Ault, K. A., Wheeler, C. M., Brown, D. R., Wiley, D. J., Alvarez, F. B., Bautista, O. M., Jansen, K. U., & Barr, E. (2006) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000192397.41191.fb · Cited by 451
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Harper, D. M., Franco, E. L., Wheeler, C., Ferris, D. G., Jenkins, D., Schuind, A., Zahaf, T., Innis, B., Naud, P., Decarvalho, N. S., Roteli-Martins, C. M., Teixeira, J., Blotter, M. M., Kom, A. P., Quint, W., & Dubin, G.
- Venue
- Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 171-173
- ISSN
- 0029-7828 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1969392374
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 41.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of a Bivalent L1 Virus-Like Particle Vaccine in Prevention of Infection With Human Papillomavirus Types 16 and 18 in Young Women: A Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ogx.0000154423.27940.68
- The paper
- Harper, D. M., Franco, E. L., Wheeler, C., Ferris, D. G., Jenkins, D., Schuind, A., Zahaf, T., Innis, B., Naud, P., Decarvalho, N. S., Roteli-Martins, C. M., Teixeira, J., Blotter, M. M., Kom, A. P., Quint, W., & Dubin, G. (2005). Efficacy of a Bivalent L1 Virus-Like Particle Vaccine in Prevention of Infection With Human Papillomavirus Types 16 and 18 in Young Women: A Randomized Trial. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ogx.0000154423.27940.68
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.