HPV16/18 prevalence pre- and post-immunisation among 16–18 year olds was
(i) 19.1% vs. 6.2% (68% reduction) (ii) 19.1% vs. 7.4% (61% reduction), (iii) 38.6% vs. 13.8% in chlamydia positives (64% reduction) and 16.7% vs. 5.9% in chlamydia negatives (65% reduction), and (iv) 19.7% vs. 4.8% in the GP clinics (76% reduction), 18.4% vs. 6.7% in community sexual health services (64% reduction) and 19.6% vs. 8.9% in Youth clinics (55% reduction), respectively. The detected prevalence of non-vaccine HR HPV types was slightly higher in the post-immunisation period than pre-immunisation BVD-523 in vitro for each age group (Fig. 3). There was no clear change in the pattern of age-specific prevalence, nor trend in the adjusted odds ratio by age group (Table 2). These increases combined with the decreases in HPV 16/18 resulted in similar prevalence of all HR HPV (i.e. vaccine and non-vaccine types) among 16–18 year olds in both periods (post-immunisation 34.1% (95% 17-AAG solubility dmso CI 31.4–36.9): pre-immunisation 34.1% (95% CI 31.1–37.3) p-value = 0.998). The detected prevalence of three HR HPV types against which cross-protection has been reported from clinical trials, HPV 31, 33 and 45  and  was slightly lower overall post-immunisation, but with no clear change in the pattern of age-specific
prevalence (data not shown), nor trend in the adjusted odds ratio by age group (Table 2). Multiple infections remained common in this age group, albeit somewhat reduced in the immunised ages in line with reduced prevalence of HPV 16/18 (36.8% of HR HPV positive 16–18 year olds with more than one HR HPV vs. 52 7% in 2008). As in 2008, non-vaccine HR HPV types were found in over half of the HPV 16/18 positives. These findings are an early indication that the national HPV immunisation programme is successfully
GPX6 preventing HPV 16/18 infection in sexually active young women in England. There was a clear change in the pattern of age-specific HPV 16/18 prevalence and the prevalence amongst females eligible for immunisation was considerably lower than previously measured in 2008 prior to immunisation. Lower HPV16/18 prevalence was associated with higher immunisation coverage. These surveillance data show the impact of a high coverage immunisation programme within the targeted, and slightly older, population. Without vaccination status, we could not report the effectiveness amongst those immunised, however that would likely be heavily influenced by biases in vaccine uptake in these catch-up cohorts. The finding of no fall in HPV 16/18 prevalence between time periods among females above the age of HPV immunisation, and no change in the age-specific pattern of non-vaccine HR prevalence argues against the HPV 16/18 changes being solely due to selection biases or time trends and supports their attribution to the impact of the immunisation programme. In fact, the known changes in selection of subjects (e.g.