Comparative Effects of Bivalent, Quadrivalent, and Nonavalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccines in The Prevention of Genotype-Specific Infection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Infection & chemotherapy Vol. 56; no. 1; pp. 37 - 46
• Main Authors: Kim, Jimin, Choe, Young June, Park, Jungeun, Cho, Jahyun, Cheong, Chelim, Oh, Jin-Kyoung, Park, Mihai, Shim, Eunha, Yu, Su-Yeon
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korea (South) The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases; Korean Society for Antimicrobial Therapy; The Korean Society for AIDS 01.03.2024; 대한감염학회
• Subjects: Original; 내과학; Papillomavirus vaccines; Network meta-analysis; Comparative effectiveness Research; Papillomavirus infections
• ISSN: 2093-2340; 2092-6448
• DOI: 10.3947/ic.2023.0064

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a major global disease burden and the main cause of cervical cancer. Certain HPV genotypes, with are the most common etiologic pathogens and cause a significant disease burden, are being targeted for vaccine development. However, few studies have focused on the comparative effectiveness of the bivalent HPV (2v-HPV), quadrivalent HPV (4v-HPV), and nonavalent HPV (9v-HPV) vaccines against HPV strain-specific infection. This study investigated the comparative effects of these vaccines against genotype-specific infection. We conducted a pairwise and network meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials of HPV vaccines according to sex and HPV infection status for nine HPV genotypes (HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58). Overall, 10 randomized controlled trials (12 articles) were included in this study. In the network meta-analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in the prevention of carcinogenic HPV strains (16/18/31/33/45/52/58) between the 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in female HPV infection-naïve populations. However, the 9v-HPV vaccine showed a significantly superior effect compared with 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in preventing HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections. Although 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines provided some cross-protection against HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections, the effect was significant only on HPV 31 infection. For HPV 16 and 18, neither statistically significant nor small differences were found in the prevention of HPV infection among the 2v-HPV, 4v-HPV, and 9v-HPV vaccines. Our study complements previous understanding of how the effect of HPV vaccines differs according to the HPV genotype. This is important because HPV genotype prevalence varies among countries. We advocate for continued efforts in vaccinating against HPV, while public health agencies should consider the difference in the vaccine effect and HPV genotype prevalence when implementing HPV vaccination in public vaccination programs.