z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Will HPV vaccination prevent cervical cancer?
Author(s) -
Rees Claire P,
Brhlikova Petra,
Pollock Allyson M
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of the royal society of medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.38
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1758-1095
pISSN - 0141-0768
DOI - 10.1177/0141076819899308
Subject(s) - medicine , cervical cancer , cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , vaccination , clinical trial , vaccine efficacy , gardasil , surrogate endpoint , hpv infection , randomized controlled trial , hpv vaccines , vaccine trial , confidence interval , cancer , gynecology , oncology , immunology
Summary We conducted a critical appraisal of published Phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer in women. Our analysis shows the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy in these data. There were 12 randomised control trials (RCTs) of Cervarix and Gardasil. The trial populations did not reflect vaccination target groups due to differences in age and restrictive trial inclusion criteria. The use of composite and distant surrogate outcomes makes it impossible to determine effects on clinically significant outcomes. It is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop. Although there is evidence that vaccination prevents cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) this is not a clinically important outcome (no treatment is given). Trials used composite surrogate outcomes which included CIN1. High efficacy against CIN1+ (CIN1, 2, 3 and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS)) does not necessarily mean high efficacy against CIN3+ (CIN3 and AIS), which occurs much less frequently. There are too few data to clearly conclude that HPV vaccine prevents CIN3+. CIN in general is likely to have been overdiagnosed in the trials because cervical cytology was conducted at intervals of 6–12 months rather than at the normal screening interval of 36 months. This means that the trials may have overestimated the efficacy of the vaccine as some of the lesions would have regressed spontaneously. Many trials diagnosed persistent infection on the basis of frequent testing at short intervals, i.e. less than six months. There is uncertainty as to whether detected infections would clear or persist and lead to cervical changes.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom