However, assays based on reactivity of a single monoclonal antibody do not correlate quite as well with the other two assays. In particular, it is not uncommon for sera to be negative in a monoclonal antibody competition assay and positive in a less restrictive assay [55] and [57]. A likely

explanation for this observation is that the dominant antibody response in some individuals is to epitopes that do not overlap with the epitope recognized by the competing monoclonal antibody [58]. Regardless of the assay used, studies in young women have demonstrated consistent, strong, and durable antibody responses to each type in the vaccine. Seroconversion rates approach or equal 100% for each type in the vaccines [31], [57], [59] and [60]. Peak geometric mean titers (GMTs) one month after the third dose were at least 100-fold higher than after click here natural infection and then decline approximately 10-fold to a plateau level in the next 2 years. Virtually all women maintain stable detectable responses for more than 4 years. For Cervarix®, maintenance of plateau levels above the levels detected after

natural infection for up to 8.4 years have been observed [31] and [61] (Fig. 3). Similar results were reported for Gardasil®, with the additional evidence for immune memory in that antibody responses could be boosted by revaccination at month 60 (Fig. this website 4) [62]. The notable exception is that about one third of the vaccinees became seronegative for HPV18 in the cLIA assay used in the Gardasil® trials [60]. This exception is more likely due primarily to the HPV18-specific monoclonal antibody not competing effectively with the vaccine-induced antibodies in some women than due to the absence of inhibitors protective antibodies. Most of the cLIA-negative women were positive in a less restricted assay that measures total VLP IgG, and there is no sign of preferential waning of HPV18 immunity in the Gardasil® trials [57] and [60]. Moreover and importantly Idoxuridine there is still protection from HPV18-related disease in these women. There has been one randomized

trial in women 18–45 years old that directly compared the immunogenicity of Gardasil® and Cervarix®. Cervarix® induced significantly higher peak GMTs of neutralizing antibodies than Gardasil®, 2.3–4.8-fold for HPV16 and 6.8–9.1-fold for HPV18, depending upon age [40]. Similar significant differences in HPV16 and HPV18 GMTs for the two vaccines were also observed at month 24 [59]. Higher HPV16/18 VLP-specific IgG levels in the serum of Cervarix® vaccinated women was reflected in correspondingly higher levels of HPV16/18 VLP-specific IgG in cervicovaginal secretions through month 24. The greater antibody (and also T helper) responses to Cervarix® compared to Gardasil® is most likely the result of increase immune activation by the TL4 ligand MPL in the Cervarix®’s AS04 adjuvant [12]. Higher antibody responses would, in general, seem desirable.