Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Continue to use the bivalent HPV vaccine; bivalent vaccine more effective than expected].

Authors: Maarten J, Postma; Jan C, Wilschut;

[Continue to use the bivalent HPV vaccine; bivalent vaccine more effective than expected].

Abstract

It is becoming clear that there are significant differences between the two principal human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, namely the bivalent vaccine and the quadrivalent vaccine. Both vaccines contain HPV16 and HPV18, together responsible for approximately 73% of cases of cervical cancer. The quadrivalent vaccine also contains HPV6 and HPV11, thus protecting against genital warts. Real-world data show 89% efficacy for the bivalent vaccine against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia stage 3, irrespective of the HPV type involved, versus 64% for the quadrivalent vaccine. This suggests superior cross-reactivity of the bivalent vaccine against oncogenic HPV types not contained in the vaccine, presumably thanks to the MPLA adjuvant in the vaccine. In the Netherlands, the cross-reactivity of the bivalent vaccine may ultimately lead to a significant additional reduction of cervical cancer deaths per year. Since protection against genital warts should not be pursued at the expense of protection against cervical cancer, we recommend that the Netherlands continue to use the bivalent vaccine in its national immunisation programme.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Condylomata Acuminata, Immunization Programs, Papillomavirus Infections, Humans, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Papillomavirus Vaccines, Vaccines, Combined, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Netherlands

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!