Co-administration of human papillomavirus-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine with hepatitis B vaccine: randomized study in healthy girls

Trial watch: FDA-approved Toll-like receptor agonists for cancer therapy

Toll-like receptors (TLRs) have first been characterized for their capacity to detect conserved microbial components like lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and double-stranded RNA, resulting in the elicitation of potent (innate) immune responses against invading pathogens. More recently, TLRs have also been shown to promote the activation of the cognate immune system against cancer cells. Today, only three TLR agonists are approved by FDA for use in humans: the bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) and imiquimod. BCG (an attenuated strain of Mycobacterium bovis) is mainly used as a vaccine against tuberculosis, but also for the immunotherapy of in situ bladder carcinoma. MPL (derived from the LPS of Salmonella minnesota) is included in the formulation of Cervarix®, a vaccine against human papillomavirus-16 and -18. Imiquimod (a synthetic imidazoquinoline) is routinely employed for actinic keratosis, superficial basal cell carcinoma, and external genital warts (condylomata acuminata). In this Trial Watch, we will summarize the results of recently completed clinical trials and discuss the progress of ongoing studies that have evaluated/are evaluating FDA-approved TLR agonists as off-label medications for cancer therapy.

Human papillomavirus vaccination: Good clinical practice recommendations from the Federation of Obstetric and Gynecological Societies of India

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination offers an excellent prospect for the primary prevention of cervical cancer. The bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines are both available in India. The nonavalent vaccine is licensed but not yet available. However, there still remain controversies regarding the vaccination of older women, immunocompromised females and other special groups. To provide recommendations for HPV vaccination in India. The Federation of Obstetric and Gynecological Societies of India (FOGSI) convened an expert group on cervical cancer prevention to formulate good clinical practice recommendations (GCPR) with respect to vaccine efficacy and safety, target groups, optimal timing and dosing schedules. HPV vaccines are licensed for females aged 9-45 years in India and have been seen to be safe and effective. FOGSI recommends HPV vaccination of all girls <15 years of age as the best target group, in whom two-doses at an interval of 6 months, extendable to 18 months, are recommended. Three-doses are recommended in girls >15 years of age, immunocompromised persons and sexual assault survivors. Older women and women with abnormal screening results may be vaccinated with an understanding that vaccination does not protect against already acquired infections and screening has to continue. Single-dose vaccination results are promising. Increased awareness is required to reduce vaccine hesitancy. HPV vaccination should be the priority to achieve the elimination of cervical cancer. The introduction of affordable HPV vaccines and reduced dose schedules will improve coverage.

Meta-analysis of the risk of autoimmune thyroiditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and inflammatory bowel disease following vaccination with AS04-adjuvanted human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine

Purpose

To assess the risk of three autoimmune diseases ‐ autoimmune thyroiditis (AIT), Guillain‐Barré syndrome (GBS), and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) ‐ in females following AS04‐HPV‐16/18 vaccination.

Methods

This meta‐analysis included data from 18 randomized controlled trials, one cluster‐randomized trial, two large observational retrospective cohort studies, and one case‐control study. Following vaccination, a risk window of 2 years was defined for AIT and IBD and 42 days for GBS. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using three methods: meta‐analysis inverse‐variance with continuity correction (primary analysis), pooled estimate, and beta‐binomial regression.

Results

In all studies apart from the case‐control study, 154 398 exposed and 1 504 322 non‐exposed subjects were included, among whom there were 141 and 1972 cases of (autoimmune) thyroiditis; 2 and 2 cases of GBS; and 43 and 401 cases of IBD, respectively. In the case‐control study, there were 97 cases of AIT and 13 of GBS; matched with 802 and 130 controls, respectively. The primary analysis OR estimates were 1.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22‐1.76), 11.14 (2.00‐61.92), and 1.11 (0.75‐1.66) for (autoimmune) thyroiditis, GBS, and IBD, respectively.

Conclusions

This meta‐analysis did not show an increased risk of IBD following vaccination with AS04‐HPV‐16/18. The 1.5‐fold increased risk of (autoimmune) thyroiditis does not allow us to conclude about a causal association. For GBS, the very low number of cases and wide 95% CIs negate any firm conclusion.

The effectiveness of vaccination to prevent the papillomavirus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Our purpose was to determine the effectiveness and harms of vaccination in patients with any sexual history to prevent the prevalence of papillomavirus infection. A search strategy was conducted in the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and LILACS databases. Searches were also conducted in other databases and unpublished literature. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Analysis of fixed effects was conducted. The primary outcome was the infection by any and each human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype, serious adverse effects and short-term adverse effects. The measure of the effect was the risk difference (RD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The planned interventions were bivalent vaccine/tetravalent/nonavalent vs. placebo/no intervention/other vaccines. We included 29 studies described in 35 publications. Bivalent HPV vaccine offers protection against HPV16 (RD −0.05, 95% CI −0.098 to −0.0032), HPV18 (RD −0.03, 95% CI −0.062 to −0.0004) and HPV16/18 genotypes (RD of −0.1, 95% CI −0.16 to −0.04). On the other side, tetravalent HPV vaccine offered protection against HPV6 (RD of −0.0500, 95% CI −0.0963 to −0.0230), HPV11 (RD −0.0198, 95% CI −0.0310 to −0.0085). Also, against HPV16 (RD of −0.0608, 95% CI −0.1126 to −0.0091) and HPV18 (RD of −0.0200, 95% CI −0.0408 to −0.0123). There was a reduction in the prevalence of HPV16, 18 and 16/18 genotypes when applying the bivalent vaccine, with no increase in adverse effects. Regarding the tetravalent vaccine, we found a reduction in the prevalence of HPV6, 11, 16 and 18 genotypes, with no increase in adverse effects.

Benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines: comparison of trial data from clinical study reports with corresponding trial register entries and journal publications

BACKGROUND

No study has looked at differences of pooled estimates-such as meta-analyses-of corresponding study documents of the same intervention. In this study, we compared meta-analyses of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine trial data from clinical study reports with trial data from corresponding trial register entries and journal publications.

METHODS

We obtained clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency and GlaxoSmithKline, corresponding trial register entries from ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding journal publications via the Cochrane Collaboration's Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar and PubMed. Two researchers extracted data. We compared reporting of trial design aspects and 20 prespecified benefit and harm outcomes extracted from each study document type. Risk ratios were calculated with the random effects inverse variance method.

RESULTS

We included study documents from 22 randomized clinical trials and 2 follow-up studies with 95,670 healthy participants and non-HPV vaccine comparators (placebo, HPV vaccine adjuvants and hepatitis vaccines). We obtained 24 clinical study reports, 24 corresponding trial register entries and 23 corresponding journal publications; the median number of pages was 1351 (range 357 to 11,456), 32 (range 11 to 167) and 11 (range 7 to 83), respectively. All 24 (100%) clinical study reports, no (0%) trial register entries and 9 (39%) journal publications reported on all six major design-related biases defined by the Cochrane Handbook version 2011. The clinical study reports reported more inclusion criteria (mean 7.0 vs. 5.8 [trial register entries] and 4.0 [journal publications]) and exclusion criteria (mean 17.8 vs. 11.7 and 5.0) but fewer primary outcomes (mean 1.6 vs. 3.5 and 1.2) and secondary outcomes (mean 8.8 vs. 13.0 and 3.2) than the trial register entries. Results were posted for 19 trial register entries (79%). Compared to the clinical study reports, the trial register entries and journal publications contained 3% and 44% of the seven assessed benefit data points (6879 vs. 230 and 3015) and 38% and 31% of the 13 assessed harm data points (167,550 vs. 64,143 and 51,899). No meta-analysis estimate differed significantly when we compared pooled risk ratio estimates of corresponding study document data as ratios of relative risk.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in the meta-analysis estimates of the assessed outcomes from corresponding study documents. The clinical study reports were the superior study documents in terms of the quantity and the quality of the data they contained and should be used as primary data sources in systematic reviews.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol for our comparison is registered on PROSPERO as an addendum to our systematic review of the benefits and harms of the HPV vaccines: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20180320.pdf: CRD42017056093. Our systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO on January 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20170030.pdf. Two protocol amendments were registered on PROSPERO on November 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20171116.pdf. Our index of the HPV vaccine studies was published in Systematic Reviews on January 2018: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0675-z. A description of the challenges obtaining the data was published on September 2018: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3694.

Immunogenicity and safety of human papillomavirus vaccine coadministered with other vaccines in individuals aged 9-25 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Adolescents and young adults are at a high risk of developing human papillomavirus (HPV) infections, which can be prevented with the use of vaccines. Moreover, a combined immunization strategy for administration of HPV vaccines with other routine vaccines may lead to better compliance. We aim to comprehensively evaluate immunogenicity and safety in the case of concomitantly administered HPV vaccine in individuals aged 9-25 years.

METHODS

Relevant studies, published up to December 27, 2018, were identified through searches of Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge. The pooled relative risk (RR) of immunogenicity and safety information pertaining to the concomitant administration of HPV vaccines with other routine vaccines in healthy participants aged 9-25 years were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 13 papers (11,657 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. The analyses showed that, between the concomitant and nonconcomitant administration groups, the seroconversion rate for the specific antibodies against all HPV types (type 16-, 18-, 6-, 11-, 31-, 33-, 45-, 52-, and 58) were the same (the pooled RR = 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.00-1.00); for the bivalent HPV (2vHPV) vaccine, the risks of local adverse events showed no significant difference (the pooled RR = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.97-1.04), and the risks of systemic adverse events were almost similar (the pooled RR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.03-1.18); for the non-bivalent HPV (4vHPV and 9vHPV) vaccines, the risks of local adverse events were slightly higher in the concomitant administration groups (the pooled RR = 1.31, 95%CI: 1.17-1.47), and the risks of systemic adverse events were higher in the concomitant administration groups (the pooled RR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.69-2.59).

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the concomitant administration of other vaccines along with HPV vaccine is acceptable and there is no interference with the immune response to HPV vaccine. Concomitant vaccine administration has the potential to minimize the number of vaccination visits, leading to increased compliance, hence more effective disease prevention.

Safety of Co-Administration Versus Separate Administration of the Same Vaccines in Children: A Systematic Literature Review

The growing number of available vaccines that can be potentially co-administered makes the assessment of the safety of vaccine co-administration increasingly relevant but complex. We aimed to synthesize the available scientific evidence on the safety of vaccine co-administrations in children by performing a systematic literature review of studies assessing the safety of vaccine co-administrations in children between 1999 and 2019, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Fifty studies compared co-administered vaccines versus the same vaccines administered separately. The most frequently studied vaccines included quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY) vaccine, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis (DTaP) or tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed, hepatitis B, inactivated poliovirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate (DTaP-HepB-IPV/Hib) vaccine, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and pneumococcal conjugate 7-valent (PCV7) or 13-valent (PCV13) vaccines. Of this, 16% (n = 8) of the studies reported significantly more adverse events following immunization (AEFI) while in 10% (n = 5) significantly fewer adverse events were found in the co-administration groups. Statistically significant differences between co-administration and separate administration were found for 16 adverse events, for 11 different vaccine co-administrations. In general, studies briefly described safety and one-third of studies lacked any statistical assessment of AEFI. Overall, the evidence on the safety of vaccine co-administrations compared to separate vaccine administrations is inconclusive and there is a paucity of large post-licensure studies addressing this issue.

Efficacy and safety of prophylactic HPV vaccines. A Cochrane review of randomized trials

INTRODUCTION

Recently, the evidence on efficacy and safety of prophylactic HPV vaccines derived from randomized trials was published in the Cochrane database of Systematic reviews. A summary of this Cochrane review is presented below.

AREAS COVERED

Only trials involving mono-, bi-, and quadrivalent HPV vaccines were included. Trials evaluating the nonavalent vaccine were excluded since women in the control group received the quadrivalent vaccine. Main efficacy outcomes were: histologically confirmed cervical precancer lesions distinguishing those associated with vaccine HPV types and any cervical precancer. Exposure groups were: women aged: 15-26 or 24-45 years being initially negative for high-risk HPV (hrHPV) or negative for the vaccine types and women unselected by HPV status.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

All evaluated vaccines offered excellent protection against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or 3 (CIN2 or CIN3) and adenocarcinoma in situ associated with HPV16/18 infection in young women who were not initially infected with hrHPV or HPV16/18. Vaccine efficacy was lower when all women regardless of HPV DNA status at enrollment were included. In young women, HPV vaccination protected also against any cervical precancer but the magnitude of protection was lower than against HPV16/18 associated cervical precancer. Vaccine efficacy was lower in mid-adult (aged 24-45 years) women. No protection against cervical precancer was found in mid-adult women unselected by HPV DNA status at enrollment. Trials were not empowered to address protection against cervical cancer. Occurrence of severe adverse events or adverse pregnancy outcomes was not significantly higher in recipients of HPV vaccines than in women included in the control arms.

Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors

BACKGROUND

Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomaviruses (hrHPV) types is causally linked with the development of cervical precancer and cancer. HPV types 16 and 18 cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the harms and protection of prophylactic human papillomaviruses (HPV) vaccines against cervical precancer and HPV16/18 infection in adolescent girls and women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase (June 2017) for reports on effects from trials. We searched trial registries and company results' registers to identify unpublished data for mortality and serious adverse events.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy and safety in females offered HPV vaccines with placebo (vaccine adjuvants or another control vaccine).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane methodology and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for protection against cervical precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and above [CIN2+], CIN grade 3 and above [CIN3+], and adenocarcinoma-in-situ [AIS]), and for harms. We distinguished between the effects of vaccines by participants' baseline HPV DNA status. The outcomes were precancer associated with vaccine HPV types and precancer irrespective of HPV type. Results are presented as risks in control and vaccination groups and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals in brackets.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 trials (73,428 participants). Ten trials, with follow-up of 1.3 to 8 years, addressed protection against CIN/AIS. Vaccine safety was evaluated over a period of 6 months to 7 years in 23 studies. Studies were not large enough or of sufficient duration to evaluate cervical cancer outcomes. All but one of the trials was funded by the vaccine manufacturers. We judged most included trials to be at low risk of bias. Studies involved monovalent (N = 1), bivalent (N = 18), and quadrivalent vaccines (N = 7). Most women were under 26 years of age. Three trials recruited women aged 25 and over. We summarize the effects of vaccines in participants who had at least one immunisation.Efficacy endpoints by initial HPV DNA statushrHPV negativeHPV vaccines reduce CIN2+, CIN3+, AIS associated with HPV16/18 compared with placebo in adolescent girls and women aged 15 to 26. There is high-certainty evidence that vaccines lower CIN2+ from 164 to 2/10,000 (RR 0.01 (0 to 0.05)) and CIN3+ from 70 to 0/10,000 (RR 0.01 (0.00 to 0.10). There is moderate-certainty evidence that vaccines reduce the risk of AIS from 9 to 0/10,000 (RR 0.10 (0.01 to 0.82).HPV vaccines reduce the risk of any CIN2+ from 287 to 106/10,000 (RR 0.37 (0.25 to 0.55), high certainty) and probably reduce any AIS lesions from 10 to 0/10,000 (RR 0.1 (0.01 to 0.76), moderate certainty). The size of reduction in CIN3+ with vaccines differed between bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines (bivalent: RR 0.08 (0.03 to 0.23), high certainty; quadrivalent: RR 0.54 (0.36 to 0.82), moderate certainty). Data in older women were not available for this comparison.HPV16/18 negativeIn those aged 15 to 26 years, vaccines reduce CIN2+ associated with HPV16/18 from 113 to 6 /10,000 (RR 0.05 (0.03 to 0.10). In women 24 years or older the absolute and relative reduction in the risk of these lesions is smaller (from 45 to 14/10,000, (RR 0.30 (0.11 to 0.81), moderate certainty). HPV vaccines reduce the risk of CIN3+ and AIS associated with HPV16/18 in younger women (RR 0.05 (0.02 to 0.14), high certainty and RR 0.09 (0.01 to 0.72), moderate certainty, respectively). No trials in older women have measured these outcomes.Vaccines reduce any CIN2+ from 231 to 95/10,000, (RR 0.41 (0.32 to 0.52)) in younger women. No data are reported for more severe lesions.Regardless of HPV DNA statusIn younger women HPV vaccines reduce the risk of CIN2+ associated with HPV16/18 from 341 to 157/10,000 (RR 0.46 (0.37 to 0.57), high certainty). Similar reductions in risk were observed for CIN3+ associated with HPV16/18 (high certainty). The number of women with AIS associated with HPV16/18 is reduced from 14 to 5/10,000 with HPV vaccines (high certainty).HPV vaccines reduce any CIN2+ from 559 to 391/10,000 (RR 0.70 (0.58 to 0.85, high certainty) and any AIS from 17 to 5/10,000 (RR 0.32 (0.15 to 0.67), high certainty). The reduction in any CIN3+ differed by vaccine type (bivalent vaccine: RR 0.55 (0.43 to 0.71) and quadrivalent vaccine: RR 0.81 (0.69 to 0.96)).In women vaccinated at 24 to 45 years of age, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the risks of CIN2+ associated with HPV16/18 and any CIN2+ are similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated women (RR 0.74 (0.52 to 1.05) and RR 1.04 (0.83 to 1.30) respectively). No data are reported in this age group for CIN3+ or AIS.Adverse effectsThe risk of serious adverse events is similar between control and HPV vaccines in women of all ages (669 versus 656/10,000, RR 0.98 (0.92 to 1.05), high certainty). Mortality was 11/10,000 in control groups compared with 14/10,000 (9 to 22) with HPV vaccine (RR 1.29 [0.85 to 1.98]; low certainty). The number of deaths was low overall but there is a higher number of deaths in older women. No pattern in the cause or timing of death has been established.Pregnancy outcomesAmong those who became pregnant during the studies, we did not find an increased risk of miscarriage (1618 versus 1424/10,000, RR 0.88 (0.68 to 1.14), high certainty) or termination (931 versus 838/10,000 RR 0.90 (0.80 to 1.02), high certainty). The effects on congenital abnormalities and stillbirths are uncertain (RR 1.22 (0.88 to 1.69), moderate certainty and (RR 1.12 (0.68 to 1.83), moderate certainty, respectively).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines protect against cervical precancer in adolescent girls and young women aged 15 to 26. The effect is higher for lesions associated with HPV16/18 than for lesions irrespective of HPV type. The effect is greater in those who are negative for hrHPV or HPV16/18 DNA at enrolment than those unselected for HPV DNA status. There is moderate-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines reduce CIN2+ in older women who are HPV16/18 negative, but not when they are unselected by HPV DNA status.We did not find an increased risk of serious adverse effects. Although the number of deaths is low overall, there were more deaths among women older than 25 years who received the vaccine. The deaths reported in the studies have been judged not to be related to the vaccine. Increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes after HPV vaccination cannot be excluded, although the risk of miscarriage and termination are similar between trial arms. Long-term of follow-up is needed to monitor the impact on cervical cancer, occurrence of rare harms and pregnancy outcomes.

Safety of the human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years: Interim analysis of a large community-randomized controlled trial

This community-randomized controlled trial was initiated to assess the overall and herd effects of 2 different human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization strategies in over 80,000 girls and boys aged 12–15 y in 33 communities in Finland (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00534638). Overall, 14,838 adolescents received HPV-16/18 vaccine (2,440 boys and 12,398 girls) and 17,338 received hepatitis-B virus (HBV) vaccine (9,221 boys and 8,117 girls). In an interim analysis, vaccine safety was assessed by active monitoring and surveillance via health registry linkage. Active monitoring showed that the HPV-16/18 vaccine has acceptable safety and reactogenicity in boys. In all study participants, the observed incidences (per 100,000 person-years) of serious adverse events (SAEs) possibly related to vaccination were 54.3 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 34.0–82.1) in the HPV-16/18 group and 64.0 (95% CI: 43.2–91.3) in the HBV group. During the follow-up period for this interim analysis, the most common new-onset autoimmune diseases (NOADs; with incidence rate ≥15 per 100,000) in any group based on hospital discharge registry (HILMO) download were ulcerative colitis, juvenile arthritis, celiac disease, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) and Crohn's disease. No increased NOAD incidences were observed in HPV-16/18 vaccine recipients compared to HBV vaccine recipients. In both the SAE possibly related- and HILMO-analyses, a lower incidence of IDDM was observed in HPV-16/18 vaccinees compared to HBV vaccinees (relative risks, 0.26 [95% CI: 0.03–1.24] and 0.16 [95% CI: 0.03–0.55], respectively).

Reactogenicity of Cervarix and Gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines in a randomized single blind trial in healthy UK adolescent females

One hundred and ninety eight females aged 12-15 y were enrolled in an observer-blinded randomized trial to assess the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of the tetravalent HPV vaccine Gardasil® (group 2), in comparison to the bivalent HPV vaccine, Cervarix® (group 1), which was routinely offered in the national vaccination schedule at the time. Participants were blinded to treatment group until all 3 vaccinations had been given, while laboratory staff were masked during testing. For the majority of local and general reactions, recipients of both vaccines reported comparable frequencies. Local and systemic events were rarely of high severity, except for tenderness at the injection site which reached a severe level after at least one of the doses in 24% of the Cervarix® group and 7% of the Gardasil® group (p = 0.001 comparing groups). For most reactions, no dose response was recorded, except for swelling with higher reporting at dose 3 (17.7%) than dose 1 (3.1%) for Cervarix®. SAE reporting was low (n = 3) and considered unrelated to either vaccine. This paper supports the body of evidence that Gardasil® has an acceptable safety profile when compared with Cervarix® and other vaccines given in the national program.

Literature review of vaccine-related adverse events reported from HPV vaccination in randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The human papilloma virus (HPV) infections were addressed with two FDA-approved HPV vaccines: quadrivalent and bivalent vaccine. The objective of this manuscript is to determine the safety of the HPV vaccine.

RESULTS

A search of PubMed articles for "human papillomavirus vaccine" was used to identify all-type HPV clinical studies prior to October 2014. A refined search of clinical trials, multicenter studies, and randomized studies were screened for only randomized controlled trials comparing HPV vaccine to controls (saline placebo or aluminum derivatives). Studies were limited to the two FDA-approved vaccines. Following PRISMA guidelines, the literature review rendered 13 publications that met inclusion/ exclusion criteria. Gender was limited to females in 10 studies and males in 1 study. Two studies included both males and females. Of the 11,189 individuals in 7 publications reporting cumulative, all-type adverse events (AE), the AE incidence of 76.52 % (n = 4544) in the vaccinated group was statistically significantly higher than 67.57 % (n = 3548) in the control group (p < 0.001). The most common AE were injection-site reactions. On the other hand, systemic symptoms did not statistically significantly differ between the vaccination cohort (35.28 %, n = 3351) and the control cohort (36.14 %, n = 3198) (p = 0.223). The pregnancy/ perinatal outcomes rendered no statistically significant difference between the vaccine group and control group.

CONCLUSION

Because the statistically significantly higher incidence of AE in the HPV vaccine group was primarily limited to injection-site reactions, the vaccinations are safe preventative measures in both males and females.

Randomized Open Trial Comparing 2-Dose Regimens of the Human Papillomavirus 16/18 AS04-Adjuvanted Vaccine in Girls Aged 9-14 Years Versus a 3-Dose Regimen in Women Aged 15-25 Years

Background. This randomized, open trial compared regimens including 2 doses (2D) of human papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in girls aged 9–14 years with one including 3 doses (3D) in women aged 15–25 years.

Methods. Girls aged 9–14 years were randomized to receive 2D at months 0 and 6 (M0,6; (n = 550) or months 0 and 12 (M0,12; n = 415), and women aged 15–25 years received 3D at months 0, 1, and 6 (n = 482). End points included noninferiority of HPV-16/18 antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for 2D (M0,6) versus 3D (primary), 2D (M0,12) versus 3D, and 2D (M0,6) versus 2D (M0,12); neutralizing antibodies; cell-mediated immunity; reactogenicity; and safety. Limits of noninferiority were predefined as <5% difference in seroconversion rate and <2-fold difference in geometric mean antibody titer ratio.

Results. One month after the last dose, both 2D regimens in girls aged 9–14 years were noninferior to 3D in women aged 15–25 years and 2D (M0,12) was noninferior to 2D (M0,6). Geometric mean antibody titer ratios (3D/2D) for HPV-16 and HPV-18 were 1.09 (95% confidence interval, .97–1.22) and 0.85 (.76–.95) for 2D (M0,6) versus 3D and 0.89 (.79–1.01) and 0.75 (.67–.85) for 2D (M0,12) versus 3D. The safety profile was clinically acceptable in all groups.

Conclusions. The 2D regimens for the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in girls aged 9–14 years (M0,6 or M0,12) elicited HPV-16/18 immune responses that were noninferior to 3D in women aged 15–25 years.

Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01381575.

Immunogenicity of quadrivalent HPV and combined hepatitis A and B vaccine when co-administered or administered one month apart to 9-10 year-old girls according to 0-6 month schedule

BACKGROUND

No immunogenicity data has been reported after a single dose of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (qHPV-Gardasil®) and no data are available on co-administration of this vaccine with the HAV/HBV vaccine (Twinrix-Junior®). Two pre-licensure studies reported similar anti-HPV but lower anti-HBs titers when co-administering HPV and HBV vaccines.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the immunogenicity of the qHPV and HAV/HBV vaccine when co-administered (Group-Co-adm) or given one month apart (Group-Sep) and to measure the persistence of HPV antibodies three years post-second dose of qHPV vaccine in both study groups.

METHODS

416 9-10 year-old girls were enrolled. Vaccination schedule was 0-6 months. Anti-HAV and anti-HBs were measured in all subjects 6 months post-first dose and 1 month post-second dose. Anti-HPV were measured 6 months post-first dose in Group-Co-adm and in all subjects 1 and 36 months post-second dose.

RESULTS

Six months post-first dose: 100% of subjects had detectable anti-HAV and 56% and 73% had detectable anti-HBs in Group-Co-Adm and Group-Sep, respectively. In Group-Co-adm 94, 100, 99 and 96% had detectable antibodies to HPV 6, 11, 16 and 18, respectively. One month post-second dose of qHPV and HAV/HBV vaccine, in both study groups 99.5-100% of subjects had an anti-HAV titer ≥ 20IU/L, 97.5-97.6% an anti-HBs level ≥ 10IU/L, and 100% had an anti-HPV titer ≥ 3LU. Thirty-six months post-second dose of qHPV all but four subjects (99%) had antibodies to HPV18 and 100% had antibodies to HPV6, 11 and 16. The great majority (97-100%) had an anti-HPV titer ≥ 3 LU. Post-second dose administration of qHPV and HAV/HBV, no meaningful difference was observed in the immune response in the two study groups to any component of vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that qHPV and HAV/HBV can be given during the same vaccination session. Two doses of of qHPV and HAV/HBV vaccines induce a strong immune response. Three years post-second dose of qHPV, the great majority of subjects had antibodies to HPV types included in the vaccine. A two-dose schedule for pre-adolescents might be a reasonable alternative to the currently approved three-dose schedules.

Immunoprevention of human papillomavirus-associated malignancies

Persistent infection by one of 15 high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) types is a necessary but not sufficient cause of 5% of all human cancers. This provides a remarkable opportunity for cancer prevention via immunization. Since Harald zur Hausen's pioneering identification of hrHPV types 16 and 18, found in approximately 50% and 20% of cervical cancers, respectively, two prophylactic HPV vaccines containing virus-like particles (VLP) of each genotype have been widely licensed. These vaccines are beginning to affect infection and HPV-associated neoplasia rates after immunization campaigns in adolescents. Here, we review recent progress and opportunities to better prevent HPV-associated cancers, including broadening immune protection to cover all hrHPV types, reducing the cost of HPV vaccines especially for developing countries that have the highest rates of cervical cancer, and immune-based treatment of established HPV infections. Screening based upon George Papanicolaou's cervical cytology testing, and more recently detection of hrHPV DNA/RNA, followed by ablative treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2/3) have substantially reduced cervical cancer rates, and we examine their interplay with immune-based modalities for the prevention and eventual elimination of cervical cancer and other HPV-related malignancies.

Pooled analysis of large and long-term safety data from the human papillomavirus-16/18-AS04-adjuvanted vaccine clinical trial programme

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to further evaluate the safety of the human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18-AS04-adjuvanted vaccine (HPV-16/18-vaccine Cervarix®, GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium) through a pooled analysis of data from 42 completed/ongoing clinical studies.

Methods

Unsolicited adverse events (AEs) were reported for 30 days after each dose. Medically significant conditions, serious AEs (SAEs), potential immune-mediated diseases (pIMDs) and pregnancy outcomes were captured until study completion. Events leading to subject withdrawal were reviewed. Relative risks compared incidences of spontaneous abortion and pIMDs in controlled studies.

Results

Thirty one thousand one hundred seventy-three adolescent girls/women received HPV-16/18-vaccine alone (HPV group), 2166 received HPV-16/18-vaccine coadministered with another vaccine and 24 241 were controls. Mean follow-up was 39 months (range 0–113.3). Incidences of unsolicited AEs reported within 30 days after any dose were similar between HPV and Control groups (30.8%/29.7%). During the entire study period, reports of medically significant conditions (25.0%/28.3%) and SAEs (7.9%/9.3%) were also similarly distributed between groups. Deaths were rare: HPV (alone/coadministered) n = 25, controls n = 20 (n = 18 in blinded groups). pIMDs within 1 year were reported by 0.2% of HPV-16/18 vaccinees and controls. For each pIMD event category, no increased relative risks were reported for HPV-16/18 vaccinees versus controls. Coadministration did not change the overall safety profile. Pregnancy outcomes and withdrawal rates were similar between groups.

Conclusions

Analysis of safety data arising from 57 580 subjects and 96 704 HPV-16/18-vaccine doses shows that the incidences and distribution of AEs were similar among HPV-16/18-vaccine recipients and controls. No new safety signals were identified. The data confirm previous findings that HPV-16/18-vaccine has an acceptable benefit-risk profile in adolescent girls and adult women.