Effectiveness of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine for the prevention of cervical abnormalities: case-control study nested within a population based screening programme in Australia
Open Access
- 4 March 2014
- Vol. 348 (mar04 2), g1458
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1458
Abstract
Objective To measure the effectiveness of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine against cervical abnormalities four years after implementation of a nationally funded vaccination programme in Queensland, Australia. Design Case-control analysis of linked administrative health datasets. Setting Queensland, Australia. Participants Women eligible for free vaccination (aged 12-26 years in 2007) and attending for their first cervical smear test between April 2007 and March 2011. High grade cases were women with histologically confirmed high grade cervical abnormalities (n=1062) and “other cases” were women with any other abnormality at cytology or histology (n=10 887). Controls were women with normal cytology (n=96 404). Main outcome measures Exposure odds ratio (ratio of odds of antecedent vaccination (one, two, or three vaccine doses compared with no doses) among cases compared with controls), vaccine effectiveness ((1−adjusted odds ratio)×100), and number needed to vaccinate to prevent one cervical abnormality at first screening round. We stratified by four age groups adjusted for follow-up time, year of birth, and measures of socioeconomic status and remoteness. The primary analysis concerned women whose first ever smear test defined their status as a case or a control. Results The adjusted odds ratio for exposure to three doses of HPV vaccine compared with no vaccine was 0.54 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.67) for high grade cases and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.70) for other cases compared with controls with normal cytology, equating to vaccine effectiveness of 46% and 34%, respectively. The adjusted numbers needed to vaccinate were 125 (95% confidence interval 97 to 174) and 22 (19 to 25), respectively. The adjusted exposure odds ratios for two vaccine doses were 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.98) for high grade cases and 0.79 (0.74 to 0.85) for other cases, equating to vaccine effectiveness of 21%. Conclusion The quadrivalent HPV vaccine conferred statistically significant protection against cervical abnormalities in young women who had not started screening before the implementation of the vaccination programme in Queensland, Australia.This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Impact of a population-based HPV vaccination program on cervical abnormalities: a data linkage studyBMC Medicine, 2013
- Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Introduction – The First Five YearsVaccine, 2012
- Effect of the human papillomavirus (HPV) quadrivalent vaccine in a subgroup of women with cervical and vulvar disease: retrospective pooled analysis of trial dataBMJ, 2012
- Measuring human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage and the role of the National HPV Vaccination Program Register, AustraliaSexual Health, 2011
- Impact of Human Papillomavirus (HPV)-6/11/16/18 Vaccine on All HPV-Associated Genital Diseases in Young WomenJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2010
- Efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by oncogenic HPV types (PATRICIA): final analysis of a double-blind, randomised study in young womenThe Lancet, 2009
- Efficacy, duration of immunity and cross protection after HPV vaccination: A review of the evidenceVaccine, 2009
- The Impact of Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (HPV; Types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 Virus‐Like Particle Vaccine on Infection and Disease Due to Oncogenic Nonvaccine HPV Types in Sexually Active Women Aged 16–26 YearsThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2009
- Human papillomavirus type distribution in invasive cervical cancer and high‐grade cervical lesions: A meta‐analysis updateInternational Journal of Cancer, 2007
- Calculating the “number needed to be exposed” with adjustment for confounding variables in epidemiological studiesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2002