Infections in temporal proximity to HPV vaccination and adverse effects following vaccination in Denmark: A nationwide register-based cohort study and case-crossover analysis

Abstract

Background: Public trust in the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination programme has been challenged by reports of potential severe adverse effects. The reported adverse symptoms were heterogeneous and overlapping with those characterised as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and have been described as CFS-like symptoms. Evidence suggests that CFS is often precipitated by an infection. The aim of the study was to examine if an infection in temporal proximity to HPV vaccination is a risk factor for suspected adverse effects following HPV vaccination.

Methods and findings: The study was a nationwide register-based cohort study and case-crossover analysis. The study population consisted of all HPV vaccinated females living in Denmark, born between 1974 and 2006, and vaccinated between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2017. The exposure was any infection in the period ± 1 month around time of first HPV vaccination and was defined as (1) hospital-treated infection; (2) redemption of anti-infective medication; or (3) having a rapid streptococcal test done at the general practitioner. The outcome was referral to a specialised hospital setting (5 national HPV centres opened June 1, 2015) due to suspected adverse effects following HPV vaccination. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between infection and later HPV centre referral. The participants were 600,400 HPV-vaccinated females aged 11 to 44 years. Of these, 48,361 (9.7%) females had a hospital-treated infection, redeemed anti-infective medication, or had a rapid streptococcal test ± 1 month around time of first HPV vaccination. A total of 1,755 (0.3%) females were referred to an HPV centre. Having a hospital-treated infection in temporal proximity to vaccination was associated with significantly elevated risk of later referral to an HPV centre (odds ratio (OR) 2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 4.40; P < 0.001). Increased risk was also observed among females who redeemed anti-infective medication (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.83; P < 0.001) or had a rapid streptococcal test (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.93; P = 0.010). Results from a case-crossover analysis, which was performed to adjust for potential unmeasured confounding, supported the findings. A key limitation of the study is that the HPV centres did not open until June 1, 2015, which may have led to an underestimation of the risk of suspected adverse effects, but stratified analyses by year of vaccination yielded similar results.

Conclusions: Treated infection in temporal proximity to HPV vaccination is associated with increased risk for later referral with suspected adverse vaccine effects. Thus, the infection could potentially be a trigger of the CFS-like symptoms in a subset of the referred females. To our knowledge, the study is the first to investigate the role of infection in the development of suspected adverse effects after HPV vaccination and replication of these findings are needed in other studies.

Fig 1. Case-crossover and case time-control design (inspired by Hernández-Díaz and colleagues [33]).

Fig 2. Age distribution at the time of first HPV vaccination according to calendar year.