Safety of human papillomavirus vaccines in healthy young women: a meta-analysis of 24 controlled studies.

Yukari Ogawa, Hinako Takei, Ryuichi Ogawa, Kiyoshi Mihara
Author Information
  1. Yukari Ogawa: Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Musashino University, 1-1-20 Shinmachi Nishitokyo-shi, Tokyo, 202-8585 Japan.
  2. Hinako Takei: Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Musashino University, 1-1-20 Shinmachi Nishitokyo-shi, Tokyo, 202-8585 Japan.
  3. Ryuichi Ogawa: Department of Pharmacotherapy, Meiji Pharmaceutical University, 2-522-1 Noshio, Kiyose-shi, Tokyo 204-8588 Japan.
  4. Kiyoshi Mihara: Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Musashino University, 1-1-20 Shinmachi Nishitokyo-shi, Tokyo, 202-8585 Japan.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines have been shown to be effective for the eradication of HPV and prevention of cervical cancer. However, the number of women who receive HPV vaccinations has decreased over the last several years in Japan, due to concerns about adverse reactions associated with the vaccines. We evaluated the safety of three types of HPV vaccines separately in young women and the difference in the risk of adverse reactions between HPV and other vaccines by conducting a meta-analysis.
METHODS: Primary literature was retrieved from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Japana Centra Revuo Medicina. Prospective controlled studies with participants consisting exclusively of healthy women who received bivalent, quadrivalent, or 9-valent HPV (2vHPV, 4vHPV or 9vHPV) vaccines were included. Primary safety outcome was the incidence of solicited local and systemic symptoms, and unsolicited symptoms. When two or more studies were found for the same analysis, a meta-analysis was applied.
RESULTS: A total of 24 controlled studies from 22 articles were included in our study. Of the 24 studies, 16 were placebo-controlled and eight were active-controlled (different HPV vaccine or hepatitis vaccine). Average ages of the participants ranged from 12 to 37 years. A significantly higher incidence of solicited local symptoms was observed following injection of HPV vaccines (2vHPV and 4vHPV) compared to placebo, but there was no difference between HPV vaccines [risk ratio (RR) for 2vHPV: 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09 to 1.43, RR for 4vHPV: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.20]. The incidence of solicited systemic symptoms was not different between HPV vaccines and placebo (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.09). The incidence of unsolicited symptoms was significantly higher for 2vHPV vaccine compared to placebo (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.63), but was not significantly different between 2vHPV and hepatitis B vaccines.
CONCLUSIONS: HPV vaccines had significantly higher risk of any injection site symptom compared to placebo or other vaccines (hepatitis A and B vaccines), and the incidence of solicited local symptoms was no difference between 2vHPV vaccination and 4vHPV vaccination. However, the most adverse reactions were transient.

Keywords

References

  1. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2011 Sep;18(9):1510-8 [PMID: 21734063]
  2. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jun;20(3):549-55 [PMID: 25001869]
  3. Hum Vaccin. 2009 Oct;5(10):705-19 [PMID: 19684472]
  4. BMC Infect Dis. 2013 Feb 21;13:95 [PMID: 23432812]
  5. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008 Jan-Feb;18(1):71-9 [PMID: 17466054]
  6. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(6):1323-30 [PMID: 25912475]
  7. Lancet. 2004 Nov 13-19;364(9447):1757-65 [PMID: 15541448]
  8. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009 Jul;19(5):905-11 [PMID: 19574783]
  9. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Mar 3;102(5):315-24 [PMID: 20157096]
  10. PLoS One. 2013 May 01;8(5):e61825 [PMID: 23650505]
  11. Lancet. 2009 Jun 6;373(9679):1949-57 [PMID: 19493565]
  12. Nat Rev Immunol. 2003 Feb;3(2):169-76 [PMID: 12563300]
  13. J Adolesc Health. 2010 May;46(5):414-21 [PMID: 20413076]
  14. N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 15;375(11):1019-32 [PMID: 27626517]
  15. Immunol Lett. 2006 Jan 15;102(1):10-5 [PMID: 16188325]
  16. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Oct 6;102(19):1478-88 [PMID: 20841605]
  17. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2015 Mar;22(3):282-90 [PMID: 25540274]
  18. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2017 Apr 3;13(4):889-894 [PMID: 27960593]
  19. Vaccine. 2014 Nov 28;32(50):6838-46 [PMID: 24607003]
  20. J Korean Med Sci. 2010 Aug;25(8):1197-204 [PMID: 20676333]
  21. Lancet. 2013 Aug 31;382(9894):768 [PMID: 23993189]
  22. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008 Sep-Oct;18(5):1013-9 [PMID: 17986242]
  23. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2017 Mar 1;47(3):265-276 [PMID: 28042137]
  24. Lancet. 2007 Jun 30;369(9580):2161-2170 [PMID: 17602732]
  25. J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 10;24(14):2137-50 [PMID: 16682732]
  26. BMC Infect Dis. 2011 Jan 12;11:13 [PMID: 21226933]
  27. J Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Jun 30;22(2):67-75 [PMID: 21860731]
  28. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Sep;34(9):992-8 [PMID: 26090572]
  29. Hong Kong Med J. 2010 Jun;16(3):171-9 [PMID: 20519752]
  30. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2009 Apr 10;84(15):118-31 [PMID: 19360985]
  31. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;212(3):405-6 [PMID: 25434842]
  32. J Immunol. 2009 Nov 15;183(10):6186-97 [PMID: 19864596]
  33. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2007 Oct;6(5):723-39 [PMID: 17931153]
  34. Med J Malaysia. 2014 Feb;69(1):2-8 [PMID: 24814620]
  35. Int J Cancer. 2008 Mar 15;122(6):1311-8 [PMID: 18000825]
  36. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Feb;4(2):84-90 [PMID: 14871632]
  37. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(7):1795-806 [PMID: 25424785]
  38. J Infect Dis. 2013 Jun 1;207(11):1753-63 [PMID: 23242542]
  39. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005 Mar-Apr;55(2):74-108 [PMID: 15761078]
  40. Pediatrics. 2016 Mar;137(3):e20151968 [PMID: 26908697]
  41. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013 Jul;10(7):400-10 [PMID: 23736648]
  42. Kidney Int. 2008 Apr;73(7):856-62 [PMID: 18160963]
  43. Int J Cancer. 2007 Aug 1;121(3):621-32 [PMID: 17405118]
  44. Vaccine. 2006 Jul 7;24(27-28):5571-83 [PMID: 16753240]
  45. Lancet. 2014 Dec 20;384(9961):2213-27 [PMID: 25189358]
  46. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010 Feb;36(1):123-32 [PMID: 20178538]
  47. N Engl J Med. 2007 May 10;356(19):1915-27 [PMID: 17494925]
  48. BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60 [PMID: 12958120]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0vaccinesHPV1symptomsstudies2vHPVincidencesolicitedlocalvaccinesignificantlyplacebo95%womenadversereactionsdifferencemeta-analysiscontrolled4vHPVsystemic24differenthepatitishighercomparedCI:papillomaviruscancerHoweversafetyyoungriskPrimaryparticipantshealthyincludedunsolicited16injectionRR09RR:BvaccinationSafetySolicitedBACKGROUND:HumanshowneffectiveeradicationpreventioncervicalnumberreceivevaccinationsdecreasedlastseveralyearsJapandueconcernsassociatedevaluatedthreetypesseparatelyconductingMETHODS:literatureretrievedMEDLINECochraneCentralRegisterControlledTrialsJapanaCentraRevuoMedicinaProspectiveconsistingexclusivelyreceivedbivalentquadrivalent9-valent9vHPVoutcometwofoundanalysisappliedRESULTS:total22articlesstudyplacebo-controlledeightactive-controlledAverageagesranged1237 yearsobservedfollowing[riskratio2vHPV:25confidenceintervalCI:434vHPV:1120]04099280163CONCLUSIONS:sitesymptomtransienthumanwomen:CervicalMeta-analysis

Similar Articles

Cited By