5 vs. 2.95 for 6-month persistent infection; 0.20 vs. 0.39 for CIN2+). In a FUTURE I/II analyses of HPV6, 11,16, and/or 18 DNA positive women, Gardasil®

was 100% (95% CI: 78.6–100) effective in preventing incident CIN2+ associated with a vaccine type for which the women were DNA negative at enrollment [33]. Efficacy against vaccine type-related external genital and vaginal lesions in this study group was 93.8% (95% CI: 80.7–98.8). Gardasil® was also shown to protect seropositive women against subsequent disease from the corresponding vaccine type [35]. In a MITT analysis of combined FUTURE I, FUTURE II and 007 data, efficacy in women DNA negative and seropositive for the corresponding type was 100% (95% CI: 28.7–100.0) Selleck GSK3 inhibitor against CIN1+ and 100% (95% CI: 28.3–100.0) against EGLs. However attack rates in controls, Enzalutamide molecular weight and therefore rate reductions, were low, 0.2 for CIN1+ and external genital lesions and 0.1 for CIN2+.

In comparison, a similar analysis of seronegatives in this combined study group reported a CIN2+ attack rate of 0.5 in controls [20]. From these studies, it is clear that prevalent infection by one type does not impede vaccine-induced protection from incident infection by another vaccine type. In addition, the results also seemingly indicate that the antibody responses to natural infection do not fully protect women from reinfection, Phosphoprotein phosphatase in contrast to antibodies induced by vaccination. The generally much lower antibody titers detected after infection

likely account for this difference in protection (discussed below). Consistent with this explanation, most seropositive controls who subsequently became DNA positive had antibody titers that were below the geometric mean titer [32] and [35]. Also supporting this interpretation, a recent analysis of seropositive controls in the CVT found that women with relatively high antibody titers at enrollment were mostly protected from incident infection (as measured by DNA detection) whereas those with low titers were not [36]. The 2- to 5-fold lower attack rates in seropositives vs. seronegatives supports the conclusion that antibodies induced by infection play a substantial role in protection from reinfection, or are a surrogate marker for cell-mediated immune protection. It is important to note that the above analyses might be subject to substantial misclassification. Relatively low cut points for seropositivity were used in the vaccine trials, because of the desire to exclude, as much as possible, women with prior exposure to the vaccine types in the primary ATP analyses. It is possible that the low titers in some women might be due to non-specific or cross-reactive antibody rather than indications of prior vaccine-type infection.