Evaluation of adverse events for Cervarix, Gardasil, and Gardasil-9, indicating improving safety profiles.
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is central to preventing cervical and other HPV-associated cancers. Although clinical trials have established favorable safety profiles, long-term, brand-specific real-world data remain limited. We evaluated adverse events (AEs) reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for Cervarix® (bivalent), Gardasil® (quadrivalent), and Gardasil-9® (9-valent) between January 2006 and December 2024. Domestic VAERS reports listing ≥1 HPV vaccine were extracted, deduplicated, and classified by brand. Disproportionality analyses were performed using reporting odds ratios (RORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusting for multiplicity with a 5% Benjamini - Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR). Time-to-onset was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis. This analysis of 76,575 HPV vaccine adverse event reports shows improving safety profiles across vaccine generations. Serious adverse events decreased significantly from Cervarix® (33.4%) to Gardasil® (16.2%) to Gardasil-9® (7.8%). The most common signals were presyncope for Cervarix® (ROR 11.5) and administration errors for Gardasil® and Gardasil-9®, including inappropriate scheduling (ROR 19.5) and incorrect storage (ROR 12.1). Most adverse events (82.9%) occurred within 7 d post-vaccination, with 62.5% occurring on the same day. Gardasil-9® exhibited the narrowest IQR for time to onset (0-1 d), compared to other HPV vaccines. HPV vaccines demonstrate a consistent, favorable safety profile in U.S. real-world practice. Most reported AEs were acute vasovagal reactions, and strongest signals reflected preventable errors. Strengthening provider education in cold-chain management and schedule adherence may further enhance vaccine safety. Continued active surveillance is recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Su et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: