Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 247

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

Harper, Diane M., Franco, Eduardo L., Wheeler, Cosette, Ferris, Daron G., Jenkins, David, Schuind, Ann, Zahaf, Toufk, Innis, Bruce, Naud, Paulo, Decarvalho, Newton S., Roteli-Martins, Cecilia M., Teixeira, Julio, Blotter, Mark M., Kom, Abner P., Quint, Wim, Dubin, Gary·2005·Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.ogx.0000154423.27940.68

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 247

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.