Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 7 Efficacy or effectiveness of vaccination against human papillomavirus in males: anogenital lesions in participants irrespective of their HPV status at enrolment (corresponding to intention-to-treat analysis in RCTs)

From: Efficacy, effectiveness and safety of vaccination against human papillomavirus in males: a systematic review

Study Design No. of events/no. of participants Unadjusted estimate (95% CI) Confounder-adjusted estimate (95% CI) VE (95% CI)
Vaccine Control
Condylomata acuminata
Genital
  Giuliano et al. 2011 [32]a RCT 24/4635.4 pyrs 72/4558.8 pyrs NR NA 67.2% (47.3–80.3%)
  Coskuner et al. 2014 [31]b RCT 45/91 35/80 1.26 (0.69–2.30) NR −26% (− 130 to 31%)
Anal
  Palefsky et al. 2011 [33]a RCT 13/651.3 pyrs 31/664.2 pyrs NR NA 57.2% (15.9–79.5%)
  Swedish & Goldstone 2014 [34]d, e Cohort study 10/269.3 pyrs 37/604.3 pyrs 0.49 (0.24–0.98) 0.45 (0.22–0.92) 55% (8–78%)
Anal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2
 Palefsky et al. 2011 [33]a RCT 11/668 pyrs 29/671.5 pyrs NR NA 61.9% (21.4–82.8%)
 Swedish et al. 2012 [25]c, e Cohort study 12/117.6 pyrs 35/222.8 pyrs 0.52 (0.27–1.0) 0.50 (0.26–0.98) 50% (2–74%)
Anal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3
 Palefsky et al. 2011 [33]a RCT 10/665.9 pyrs 19/672.8 pyrs NR NA 46.8% (−20 to 77.9%)
Anal cancer
 Palefsky et al. 2011 [33] RCT 0/678.4 pyrs 0/694.8 pyrs NR NA
Penile, perineal or perianal neoplasia grade 2 or 3
 Giuliano et al. 2011 [32]a RCT 3/4663.1 pyrs 2/4628.6 pyrs NR NA −48.9% (− 1682.6 to 82.9%)
Penile, perineal or perianal cancer
 Giuliano et al. 2011 [32] RCT 0/4670.6 pyrs 0/4630.5 pyrs NR NA
  1. aVE as reported in the primary study
  2. bRecurrent lesions
  3. cAll participants with a history of high-grade AIN (data for 24-month follow-up period); VE calculated from unadjusted estimate
  4. d103/313 participants with recurrent lesions
  5. eVE calculated from confounder-adjusted estimate
  6. NA not applicable, NR not reported, pyrs person-years, VE vaccine efficacy or effectiveness