Comparative immunogenicity and safety of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine and HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine administered according to 2- and 3-dose schedules in girls aged 9-14 years: Results to month 12 from a randomized trial

Different dose series of human papillomavirus vaccine in young females: a pair-wise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials

Objective

To investigate the application value of different dose of HPV vaccine in young females.

Data sources

The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SINOMED, and Wanfang Data, from the establishment of the database to August 1st, 2022.

Study eligibility criteria

The inclusion criterias were: healthy young women younger than 25 years old as the research object, randomized controlled study as the research type, and the efficacy and safety of single-dose, two-dose or three-dose HPV vaccines as the intervention measures and research endpoints.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

Meta-analysis was performed to analyze the protective effects of single-dose, 2-dose and 3-dose HPV vaccine series on young females.

Results

A total of eight eligible studies involving 16 publications were included. There is no difference in the immunogenicity between the 2-dose and 3-dose series within 12 months after the last dose of HPV vaccine. However, 3-dose series was better than the 2-dose series, which performed better than the single-dose vaccine, after 12 months. With respect to the prevention of HPV16/18 infection or HPV31/33/45 infection, the single-dose vaccine worked better than 2-dose or 3-dose series.

Conclusions

The present study showed that the immunogenicity of low-dose HPV vaccine was significantly less, but it reduced the risk of high-risk HPV infection. The low-dose HPV vaccine series may not offer a preventive effect on cervical lesions, though it needs to be further confirmed by additional studies.

Vaccine clinical trials with dynamic borrowing of historical controls: Two retrospective studies

Traditional vaccine efficacy trials usually use fixed designs with fairly large sample sizes. Recruiting a large number of subjects requires longer time and higher costs. Furthermore, vaccine developers are more than ever facing the need to accelerate vaccine development to fulfill the public's medical needs. A possible approach to accelerate development is to use the method of dynamic borrowing of historical controls in clinical trials. In this paper, we evaluate the feasibility and the performance of this approach in vaccine development by retrospectively analyzing two real vaccine studies: a relatively small immunological trial (typical early phase study) and a large vaccine efficacy trial (typical Phase 3 study) assessing prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccine. Results are promising, particularly for early development immunological studies, where the adaptive design is feasible, and control of type I error is less relevant.

Updated clinical guideline for human papillomavirus vaccine: the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines

Since the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine guidelines were developed by the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) in 2011, 2016, and 2019, several recent studies on the efficacy and safety of HPV vaccines in middle-aged women and men have been reported. Furthermore, there has been an ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of the HPV vaccine in women with prior HPV infection or who have undergone conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). We searched and reviewed studies on the efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine in middle-aged women and men and the efficacy of the HPV vaccine in patients infected with HPV and those who underwent conization for CIN. The KSGO updated their guidelines based on the results of the studies included in this review.

Review of long-term immunogenicity following HPV vaccination: Gaps in current knowledge

The licensed HPV vaccines are highly efficacious and induce high levels of neutralizing antibody levels, the assumed mediators of protection. However, a correlate of protection against HPV is lacking, and the evidence is still limited as to long-term persistence of antibodies, especially following reduced dosing schedules. The World Health Organization (WHO) urges immunization of young girls as part of the strategy to eliminate cervical cancer, thus long-lasting protection is required. The current review describes long-term follow-up regarding vaccine-induced seropositivity and antibody level development following the different vaccines and dosing schedules. Implications and opportunities of long-term vaccine-induced immune responses are discussed, such as the gaps in monitoring of long-term immunogenicity, the possibilities of reduced dosing schedules, and the importance of evidence for durable immunity.

Immunogenicity of Alternative Dosing Schedules for HPV Vaccines among Adolescent Girls and Young Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Alternative dosing schedules for licensed human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, particularly single dose and extended intervals between doses (>12 months), are being considered to address vaccine shortages and improve operational flexibility. We searched PUBMED/MEDLINE for publications reporting immunogenicity data following administration of one of the licensed HPV vaccines (2vHPV, 4vHPV, and 9vHPV) to females aged 9-26 years. We conducted non-inferiority analyses comparing alternative to standard schedules using mixed effects meta-regression controlling for baseline HPV status and disaggregated by vaccine, subtype, time point, and age group (9-14 and 15-26 years). Non-inferiority was defined as the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio being greater than 0.5. Our search returned 2464 studies, of which 23 were included in data analyses. When evaluated against standard schedules, although robust immunogenicity was demonstrated across all multi-dose groups, non-inferiority of extended interval dosing was mixed across vaccines, subtypes, and time points. Single dose did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in any comparisons. Sparse data limited the number of possible comparisons, and further research is warranted.

MPL Adjuvant Contains Competitive Antagonists of Human TLR4

Monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL^®) is the first non-alum vaccine adjuvant to achieve widespread clinical and market acceptance, a remarkable achievement given that it is manufactured from a Salmonella enterica endotoxin. To understand how MPL^® successfully balanced the dual mandate of vaccine design—low reactogenicity with high efficacy—clinical- and research-grade MPL was evaluated in human and mouse cell systems. Stimulatory dose response curves revealed that most preparations of MPL are much more active in mouse than in human cell systems, and that the limited efficacy observed in human cells correlated with TLR4 inhibitory activity that resulted in a partial agonist profile. Further analysis of the major components of MPL^® adjuvant prepared synthetically identified two structural variants that functioned as competitive antagonists of human TLR4. A partial agonist profile could be recapitulated and manipulated by spiking synthetic agonists with synthetic antagonists to achieve a broad dose range over which TLR4 stimulation could be constrained below a desired threshold. This report thus identifies mixed agonist–antagonist activity as an additional mechanism by which MPL^® adjuvant is detoxified, relative to its parental LPS, to render it safe for use in prophylactic vaccines.

Comparing immunogenicity of the Escherichia coli-produced bivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in females of different ages

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of a recently licensed Escherichia coli (E. coli)-produced bivalent HPV vaccine have been shown. Specific antibody levels are important indicators to evaluate the efficacy of vaccination. Therefore, we compared the immunogenicity of this HPV 16/18 vaccine in females of different ages in this study.

METHODS

Immunogenicity of the vaccine was analyzed in the per-protocol sets for immunogenicity (PPS-I) of a phase III trial and an immune-bridging trial. The serum samples were collected at month 0 and one month after the final dose (month 7) to assess the specific IgG antibody levels by ELISA. The seroconversion rates, geometric mean concentration (GMC), and geometric mean increase (GMI) were used to assess the immunogenicity of the test vaccine. The non-linear association of antibody levels with age was estimated via natural cubic splines and the Akaike information criterion was used to assess optimal model.

RESULTS

By combining the PPS-I data from the two trials, nearly all of the females seroconverted for both HPV types. In the 3-dose group, the GMC of IgG to both HPV types decreased with increasing age, especially in adolescent girls and young women. For HPV-16 and -18, the declining trend slowed down in women older than 32 and 35 years old, respectively. The GMI ranged from 648 to 80 for HPV-16 and from 218 to 42 for HPV-18. In the 2-dose group, the specific antibodies for HPV-16 and -18 peaked in girls aged 10 years with GMIs of 401 and 98, respectively, and then decreased with age.

CONCLUSIONS

The E. coli-produced bivalent HPV-16/18 vaccine induced specific antibody responses in females aged 9-45 years. The antibody levels were inversely associated with age, and the declining trends slowed down in women older than 32 or 35 years for HPV-16 and -18, respectively.

HPV Vaccination: The Position Paper of the Italian Society of Colposcopy and Cervico-Vaginal Pathology (SICPCV)

Human papillomavirus (HPV) related cervical cancer represents an issue of public health priority. The World Health Organization recommended the introduction of HPV vaccination in all national public programs. In Europe, vaccines against HPV have been available since 2006. In Italy, vaccination is recommended and has been freely offered to all young girls aged 11 years since 2008. Three prophylactic HPV vaccines are available against high- and low-risk genotypes. The quadrivalent vaccine contains protein antigens for HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18. The bivalent vaccine includes antigens for HPV 16 and 18. The nonavalent vaccine was introduced in 2014, and it targets HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Clinical trials demonstrated the effectiveness of the three vaccines in healthy young women. Likewise, all vaccines showed an excellent safety profile. The bivalent vaccine provides two doses in subjects aged between 9 and 14 years and three doses in subjects over 14 years of age. The quadrivalent vaccine provides two doses in individuals from 9 to 13 years and three doses in individuals aged 14 years and over. The nonavalent vaccine schedule provides two doses in individuals from 9 to 14 years of age and three doses in individuals aged 15 years and over at the time of the first administration. Preliminary results suggest that the HPV vaccine is effective in the prevention of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions even after local treatment. Given these outcomes, in general, it is imperative to expand the vaccinated target population. Some interventions to improve the HPV vaccine’s uptake include patient reminders, physicians-focused interventions, school-based vaccinations programs, and social marketing strategies. The Italian Society of Colposcopy and Cervico-Vaginal Pathology (SICPCV) is committed to supporting vaccination programs for children and adolescents with a catch-up program for young adults. The SICPCV also helps clinical and information initiatives in developing countries to decrease the incidence of cervico-vaginal and vulvar pathology.

Adolescent and Parent Perceptions about Participation in Biomedical Sexual Health Trials

Given the burden of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among adolescents who are legal minors, it is critical that they be included in biomedical sexual health trials to ensure that new prevention and treatment interventions are safe, effective, and acceptable for their use. However, adolescents are often not well represented in clinical trials. We provide an overview of the available evidence regarding adolescent and parent willingness for adolescents to participate in biomedical sexual health trials, parental involvement in the permission-consent process, management of differences and discord among adolescents and parents, and parental involvement throughout the study period. We also outline recommendations for current practice and areas for future research.

Natural and vaccine-induced B cell-derived systemic and mucosal humoral immunity to human papillomavirus

Introduction: Human papillomavirus (HPV) are the causative agent of mucosal neoplasia. Both cervical, anal and oropharyngeal cancers incidence is constantly increasing, making the HPV infection, a significant worldwide concern. Together, the CD8+ T cytotoxic cell-mediated response and the HPV-specific antibody response control most of the HPV infections before the development of cancers.Areas covered: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and identified 228 eligible studies from 1987 to 2019 which examines both naturally acquired and vaccine induced humoral immunity against HPV infection in female and male subjects from worldwide origin. Herein, we synthesize current knowledge on the features of systemic and mucosal humoral immunity against HPV. We discuss the issues of the balance between the viral clearance or the escape to the host immune response, the differences between natural and vaccine-induced HPV-specific antibodies and their neutralizing capability. We also discuss the protection afforded after natural infection or following prophylactic vaccination.Expert opinion: Understanding the antibody response induced by HPV infection has led to the design of first-generation prophylactic vaccines. Now, prophylactic vaccination induces protective and long-lasting antibody response which would also strengthened the natural moderate humoral response in people previously exposed to the virus.

Comparison of different human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine types and dose schedules for prevention of HPV-related disease in females and males

BACKGROUND

Uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine remains low in many countries, although the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines given as a three-dose schedule are effective in the prevention of precancerous lesions of the cervix in women. Simpler immunisation schedules, such as those with fewer doses, might reduce barriers to vaccination, as may programmes that include males.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and harms of different dose schedules and different types of HPV vaccines in females and males.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches on 27 September 2018 in Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in the Cochrane Library), and Ovid Embase. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov (both 27 September 2018), vaccine manufacturer websites, and checked reference lists from an index of HPV studies and other relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with no language restriction. We considered studies if they enrolled HIV-negative males or females aged 9 to 26 years, or HIV-positive males or females of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used methods recommended by Cochrane. We use the term 'control' to refer to comparator products containing an adjuvant or active vaccine and 'placebo' to refer to products that contain no adjuvant or active vaccine. Most primary outcomes in this review were clinical outcomes. However, for comparisons comparing dose schedules, the included RCTs were designed to measure antibody responses (i.e. immunogenicity) as the primary outcome, rather than clinical outcomes, since it is unethical to collect cervical samples from girls under 16 years of age. We analysed immunogenicity outcomes (i.e. geometric mean titres) with ratios of means, clinical outcomes (e.g. cancer and intraepithelial neoplasia) with risk ratios or rate ratios and, for serious adverse events and deaths, we calculated odds ratios. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 RCTs with 31,940 participants. The length of follow-up in the included studies ranged from seven months to five years. Two doses versus three doses of HPV vaccine in 9- to 15-year-old females Antibody responses after two-dose and three-dose HPV vaccine schedules were similar after up to five years of follow-up (4 RCTs, moderate- to high-certainty evidence). No RCTs collected clinical outcome data. Evidence about serious adverse events in studies comparing dose schedules was of very low-certainty owing to imprecision and indirectness (three doses 35/1159; two doses 36/1158; 4 RCTs). One death was reported in the three-dose group (1/898) and none in the two-dose group (0/899) (low-certainty evidence). Interval between doses of HPV vaccine in 9- to 14-year-old females and males Antibody responses were stronger with a longer interval (6 or 12 months) between the first two doses of HPV vaccine than a shorter interval (2 or 6 months) at up to three years of follow-up (4 RCTs, moderate- to high-certainty evidence). No RCTs collected data about clinical outcomes. Evidence about serious adverse events in studies comparing intervals was of very low-certainty, owing to imprecision and indirectness. No deaths were reported in any of the studies (0/1898, 3 RCTs, low-certainty evidence). HPV vaccination of 10- to 26-year-old males In one RCT there was moderate-certainty evidence that quadrivalent HPV vaccine, compared with control, reduced the incidence of external genital lesions (control 36 per 3081 person-years; quadrivalent 6 per 3173 person-years; rate ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.38; 6254 person-years) and anogenital warts (control 28 per 2814 person-years; quadrivalent 3 per 2831 person-years; rate ratio 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38; 5645 person-years). The quadrivalent vaccine resulted in more injection-site adverse events, such as pain or redness, than control (537 versus 601 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.18, 3895 participants, high-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence from two RCTs about serious adverse events with quadrivalent vaccine (control 12/2588; quadrivalent 8/2574), and about deaths (control 11/2591; quadrivalent 3/2582), owing to imprecision and indirectness. Nonavalent versus quadrivalent vaccine in 9- to 26-year-old females and males Three RCTs were included; one in females aged 9- to 15-years (n = 600), one in females aged 16- to 26-years (n = 14,215), and one in males aged 16- to 26-years (n = 500). The RCT in 16- to 26-year-old females reported clinical outcomes. There was little to no difference in the incidence of the combined outcome of high-grade cervical epithelial neoplasia, adenocarcinoma in situ, or cervical cancer between the HPV vaccines (quadrivalent 325/6882, nonavalent 326/6871; OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; 13,753 participants; high-certainty evidence). The other two RCTs did not collect data about clinical outcomes. There were slightly more local adverse events with the nonavalent vaccine (905 per 1000) than the quadrivalent vaccine (846 per 1000) (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.08; 3 RCTs, 15,863 participants; high-certainty evidence). Comparative evidence about serious adverse events in the three RCTs (nonavalent 243/8234, quadrivalent 192/7629; OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.61) was of low certainty, owing to imprecision and indirectness. HPV vaccination for people living with HIV Seven RCTs reported on HPV vaccines in people with HIV, with two small trials that collected data about clinical outcomes. Antibody responses were higher following vaccination with either bivalent or quadrivalent HPV vaccine than with control, and these responses could be demonstrated to have been maintained for up to 24 months in children living with HIV (low-certainty evidence). The evidence about clinical outcomes and harms for HPV vaccines in people with HIV is very uncertain (low- to very low-certainty evidence), owing to imprecision and indirectness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The immunogenicity of two-dose and three-dose HPV vaccine schedules, measured using antibody responses in young females, is comparable. The quadrivalent vaccine probably reduces external genital lesions and anogenital warts in males compared with control. The nonavalent and quadrivalent vaccines offer similar protection against a combined outcome of cervical, vaginal, and vulval precancer lesions or cancer. In people living with HIV, both the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines result in high antibody responses. For all comparisons of alternative HPV vaccine schedules, the certainty of the body of evidence about serious adverse events reported during the study periods was low or very low, either because the number of events was low, or the evidence was indirect, or both. Post-marketing surveillance is needed to continue monitoring harms that might be associated with HPV vaccines in the population, and this evidence will be incorporated in future updates of this review. Long-term observational studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of reduced-dose schedules against HPV-related cancer endpoints, and whether adopting these schedules improves vaccine coverage rates.

The situation of vaccines for the prevention of infections in adults: An opinion paper on the situation in Spain

The childhood immunization schedule is well known and generally well implemented in developed countries. For various reasons, the same is not true of vaccines aimed at preventing infections in adults, in which vaccination coverage is incomplete and generally very deficient. In order to assess the situation of adult vaccination in Spain, the Fundación de Ciencias de la Salud has brought together a series of experts in different fields, including doctors, nurses, representatives of patient associations, health managers and economists, health authorities and journalists to deal with this issue. The format was that of a round table in which a series of questions previously formulated by the coordinators were to be answered and debated. The document presented is not an exhaustive review of the topic, nor is it intended to make recommendations, but only to give a multidisciplinary opinion on topics that could be particularly debatable or controversial. The paper reviews the main vaccine-preventable adult diseases, their clinical and economic impact, the possibilities of reducing them with vaccination programmes and the difficulties in carrying them out. The role of nursing, pharmacy services, patient associations and the health administration itself in changing the current situation was discussed. Prospects for new vaccines were discussed and we speculated on the future in this field. Finally, particularly relevant ethical aspects in decision-making regarding vaccination were discussed, which must be faced by both individuals and states. We have tried to summarize, at the end of the presentation of each question, the environment of opinion that was agreed with all the members of the table.

Selection of adjuvants for vaccines targeting specific pathogens

INTRODUCTION

Adjuvants form an integral component in most of the inactivated and subunit vaccine formulations. Careful and proper selection of adjuvants helps in promoting appropriate immune responses against target pathogens at both innate and adaptive levels such that protective immunity can be elicited. Areas covered: Herein, we describe the recent progress in our understanding of the mode of action of adjuvants that are licensed for use in human vaccines or in clinical or pre-clinical stages at both innate and adaptive levels. Different pathogens have distinct characteristics, which require the host to mount an appropriate immune response against them. Adjuvants can be selected to elicit a tailor-made immune response to specific pathogens based on their unique properties. Identification of biomarkers of adjuvanticity for several candidate vaccines using omics-based technologies can unravel the mechanism of action of modern and experimental adjuvants. Expert opinion: Adjuvant technology has been revolutionized over the last two decades. In-depth understanding of the role of adjuvants in activating the innate immune system, combined with systems vaccinology approaches, have led to the development of next-generation, novel adjuvants that can be used in vaccines against challenging pathogens and in specific target populations.

Engineering DNA vaccines against infectious diseases

Engineering vaccine-based therapeutics for infectious diseases is highly challenging, as trial formulations are often found to be nonspecific, ineffective, thermally or hydrolytically unstable, and/or toxic. Vaccines have greatly improved the therapeutic landscape for treating infectious diseases and have significantly reduced the threat by therapeutic and preventative approaches. Furthermore, the advent of recombinant technologies has greatly facilitated growth within the vaccine realm by mitigating risks such as virulence reversion despite making the production processes more cumbersome. In addition, seroconversion can also be enhanced by recombinant technology through kinetic and nonkinetic approaches, which are discussed herein. Recombinant technologies have greatly improved both amino acid-based vaccines and DNA-based vaccines. A plateau of interest has been reached between 2001 and 2010 for the scientific community with regard to DNA vaccine endeavors. The decrease in interest may likely be attributed to difficulties in improving immunogenic properties associated with DNA vaccines, although there has been research demonstrating improvement and optimization to this end. Despite improvement, to the extent of our knowledge, there are currently no regulatory body-approved DNA vaccines for human use (four vaccines approved for animal use). This article discusses engineering DNA vaccines against infectious diseases while discussing advantages and disadvantages of each, with an emphasis on applications of these DNA vaccines.

Statement of Significance

This review paper summarizes the state of the engineered/recombinant DNA vaccine field, with a scope entailing “Engineering DNA vaccines against infectious diseases”. We endeavor to emphasize recent advances, recapitulating the current state of the field. In addition to discussing DNA therapeutics that have already been clinically translated, this review also examines current research developments, and the challenges thwarting further progression. Our review covers: recombinant DNA-based subunit vaccines; internalization and processing; enhancing immune protection via adjuvants; manufacturing and engineering DNA; the safety, stability and delivery of DNA vaccines or plasmids; controlling gene expression using plasmid engineering and gene circuits; overcoming immunogenic issues; and commercial successes. We hope that this review will inspire further research in DNA vaccine development.

Safety of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines: An Updated Review

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are now included in immunisation programmes in 71 countries. Unfortunately, uptake has been impacted in some countries by reduced confidence in the safety of the HPV vaccine. In 2013, we published an extensive review demonstrating a reassuring safety profile for bivalent (2vHPV) and quadrivalent (4vHPV) vaccines. A nonavalent (9vHPV) vaccine is now available and HPV immunisation programmes have been extended to males in 11 countries. The aim of this updated narrative review was to examine the evidence on HPV vaccine safety, focusing on the 9vHPV vaccine, special populations and adverse events of special interest (AESI). The previous searches were replicated to identify studies to August 2016, including additional search terms for AESI. We identified 109 studies, including 15 population-based studies in over 2.5 million vaccinated individuals across six countries. All vaccines demonstrated an acceptable safety profile; injection-site reactions were slightly more common for 9vHPV vaccine than for 4vHPV vaccine. There was no consistent evidence of an increased risk of any AESI, including demyelinating syndromes or neurological conditions such as complex regional pain or postural orthostatic tachycardia syndromes. The risk-benefit profile for HPV vaccines remains highly favourable.

Immunogenicity of HPV prophylactic vaccines: Serology assays and their use in HPV vaccine evaluation and development

When administered as standard three-dose schedules, the licensed HPV prophylactic vaccines have demonstrated extraordinary immunogenicity and efficacy. We summarize the immunogenicity of these licensed vaccines and the most commonly used serology assays, with a focus on key considerations for one-dose vaccine schedules. Although immune correlates of protection against infection are not entirely clear, both preclinical and clinical evidence point to neutralizing antibodies as the principal mechanism of protection. Thus, immunogenicity assessments in vaccine trials have focused on measurements of antibody responses to the vaccine. Non-inferiority of antibody responses after two doses of HPV vaccines separated by 6 months has been demonstrated and this evidence supported the recent WHO recommendations for two-dose vaccination schedules in both boys and girls 9-14 years of age. There is also some evidence suggesting that one dose of HPV vaccines may provide protection similar to the currently recommended two-dose regimens but robust data on efficacy and immunogenicity of one-dose vaccine schedules are lacking. In addition, immunogenicity has been assessed and reported using different methods, precluding direct comparison of results between different studies and vaccines. New head-to-head vaccine trials evaluating one-dose immunogenicity and efficacy have been initiated and an increase in the number of trials relying on immunobridging is anticipated. Therefore, standardized measurement and reporting of immunogenicity for the up to nine HPV types targeted by the current vaccines is now critical. Building on previous HPV serology assay standardization and harmonization efforts initiated by the WHO HPV LabNet in 2006, new secondary standards, critical reference reagents and testing guidelines will be generated as part of a new partnership to facilitate harmonization of the immunogenicity testing in new HPV vaccine trials.

Human papillomavirus vaccine effectiveness by number of doses: Systematic review of data from national immunization programs

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were first licensed as a three-dose series; a two-dose series is now recommended in some age groups and there is interest in possible one-dose vaccination.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of HPV vaccine effectiveness by number of doses, including assessment of biases and impact of varying buffer periods (time between vaccination and outcome counting).

RESULTS

Of 3787 articles identified, 26 full articles were assessed and 14 included in our review. All studies were conducted within the context of recommended three-dose schedules of bivalent (3) or quadrivalent HPV vaccine (11). Two evaluated effectiveness for prevention of HPV prevalence, six anogenital warts, and six abnormal cervical cytology or histology. Many studies found differences between three-, two- and one-dose vaccine recipients, indicating possible differences in HPV exposure prior to vaccination or in risk behavior. Adjusted or stratified analyses were conducted to control for potential confounding. All studies found significant vaccine effectiveness with three doses, 11 with two doses at various intervals, and six with one dose. Most studies showed a relationship (not always statistically significant) between effectiveness and number of doses, with greater decreases in HPV-related outcomes with three, followed by two and one dose(s). Few studies conducted formal comparisons of three vs fewer doses. Three of four studies that examined buffer periods found higher effectiveness and a smaller difference by number of doses with longer periods.

CONCLUSION

Most post-licensure studies report highest effectiveness with three doses; some found no statistically significant difference between two and three doses. Additionally, almost half found some effectiveness with one dose. Several biases impact estimates, with most biasing two- and one-dose results away from showing effectiveness. Future effectiveness studies, examining persons vaccinated prior to sexual activity and using methods to reduce potential sources of bias, can help inform vaccination policy.

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.

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Two Different Two-Dose Human Papillomavirus Vaccines in Malaysia

Purpose:

To comparatively evaluate the results of a 2-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme with the AS04-adjuvanted HPV16/18 vaccine (AS04-HPV-16/18v) or HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (4vHPVv), in addition to cervical cancer (CC) screening, in Malaysia.

Methods:

A lifetime Markov model replicating the natural history of HPV in 13-year-old girls was adapted to Malaysia to assess the impact of vaccination on pre-cancerous lesions, genital warts and CC cases, CC deaths, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs from the perspective of the Malaysian Ministry of Health. Vaccine effectiveness was based on efficacy and HPV type distribution. Both vaccines were assumed to have equal efficacy against vaccine-type HPV but differed for protection against non-vaccine types. Vaccine price parity was used and health and cost outcomes were discounted at 3%/annum. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results.

Results:

The model predicted that AS04-HPV-16/18v would result in 361 fewer CC cases and 115 fewer CC deaths than 4vHPVv, whereas 4vHPVv averted 4,241 cases of genital warts over the cohort’s lifetime. Discounted total costs showed savings of 18.50 million Malaysian Ringgits and 246 QALYs in favour of AS04-HPV-16/18v. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the discount rate was the most influential variable for costs and QALYs, but AS04-HPV-16/18v remained dominant throughout. A two-way sensitivity analysis to assess the longevity of cross-protection for both vaccines confirmed the base-case.

Conclusions:

In Malaysia, the use of AS04-HPV-16/18v, in addition to screening, was modelled to be dominant over 4vHPVv, with greater estimated CC benefits and lower costs.

Opportunities and challenges for human papillomavirus vaccination in cancer

The discovery of genotype 16 as the prototype oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) initiated a quarter century of laboratory and epidemiological studies that demonstrated their necessary, but not sufficient, aetiological role in cervical and several other anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers. Early virus-induced immune deviation can lead to persistent subclinical infection that brings the risk of progression to cancer. Effective secondary prevention of cervical cancer through cytological and/or HPV screening depends on regular and widespread use in the general population, but coverage is inadequate in low-resource settings. The discovery that the major capsid antigen L1 could self-assemble into empty virus-like particles (VLPs) that are both highly immunogenic and protective led to the licensure of several prophylactic VLP-based HPV vaccines for the prevention of cervical cancer. The implementation of vaccination programmes in adolescent females is underway in many countries, but their impact critically depends on the population coverage and is improved by herd immunity. This Review considers how our expanding knowledge of the virology and immunology of HPV infection can be exploited to improve vaccine technologies and delivery of such preventive strategies to maximize reductions in HPV-associated disease, including incorporation of an HPV vaccine covering oncogenic types within a standard multitarget paediatric vaccine.

Safety and Immunogenicity of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted Vaccine in 4-6-year-old Girls: Results to Month 12 From a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The burden of cervical cancer caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) is high in Latin America. The suboptimal HPV vaccination coverage in adolescents could be improved by pediatric immunization. HPV vaccination has not yet been reported in girls <9 years of age.

METHODS

This ongoing phase III, controlled, randomized, single-blind, multicenter study conducted in Colombia, Mexico and Panama (NCT01627561) evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine in 4-6-year-old girls. Healthy girls (randomized 1:1) received either 2 doses of AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine (HPV group, N=74) or 1 dose of each measles-mumps-rubella and diphtheria-tetanus-acellular-pertussis vaccines (control group, N=74) 6 months apart. We report the safety and serum anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies (measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) up to 6 months postvaccination, that is, month (M) 12.

RESULTS

Injection site pain was the most frequently reported solicited local symptom in HPV vaccinees. The incidence of other solicited and unsolicited symptoms after each vaccination was similar between the HPV and control group. Until M12, 1 girl in the HPV group and 2 in the control group reported serious adverse events; all serious adverse events were assessed as unrelated to study vaccines. No potential immune-mediated diseases were identified. All girls seroconverted for both antigens after 2 doses of AS04-HPV-16/18. In initially seronegative girls, anti-HPV-16 geometric mean concentrations were 20080.0 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units (EU)/mL at M7 and 3246.5 EU/mL at M12; anti-HPV-18 geometric mean concentrations were 10621.8 EU/mL at M7 and 1216.6 EU/mL at M12.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-dose vaccination with AS04-HPV-16/18 was well tolerated and induced adequate antibody responses in 4-6-year-old girls.

Factors that Predict Parental Willingness to Have Their Children Vaccinated against HPV in a Country with Low HPV Vaccination Coverage

Background: Adolescent HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) vaccination is yet to be introduced as a mandatory program in Poland. Polish literature on factors associated with adolescent HPV vaccination is scant, despite the fact that uptake is one of the poorest in the European Union. Objectives: To assess HPV awareness and identify independent predictors for parental willingness to have their children vaccinated against HPV. Methods: All parents of first grade students from three selected high schools in Zgorzelec, Poland, who participated in parent–teacher meetings at the time the study was conducted, had their children unvaccinated regarding HPV, and who gave informed consent to participate were included. There were 600 first grade students; 9 were vaccinated against HPV. This left 591 parents who met the eligibility criteria; the response rate was 76.1%. Results: Awareness of HPV was reported by 55.3% of 450 parents (mean age 42 years, 70.9% females); 85.1% expressed their willingness to vaccinate their children against HPV; 31.3% identified HPV as a sexually transmitted pathogen, and 36.2% identified it as a risk factor of cervical cancer. Multivariable logistic regression analyses indicated that being employed (OR 2.09; 95% CI: 1.10–3.86), having positive attitudes toward vaccines (OR 3.02; 95% CI: 1.34–6.49), previous information about HPV (OR 2.02; 95% CI: 1.17–3.51), and concerns about the side effects of the HPV vaccine (OR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.35–0.99) were independent predictors of parents’ willingness to vaccinate. Conclusions: Attitudes regarding their child being vaccinated against HPV were positive among Polish parents, even though awareness and knowledge of HPV in this group were low. Most of the significant factors that influenced their willingness were modifiable, such as being informed about HPV and having positive attitudes toward vaccines. Future interventions should focus specifically on vulnerable subgroups, such as unemployed parents.

Comparative immunogenicity and safety of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine and 4vHPV vaccine administered according to two- or three-dose schedules in girls aged 9-14 years: Results to month 36 from a randomized trial

This observer-blind study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT01462357) compared the immunogenicity and safety of two doses (2D) of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine (2D of AS04-HPV-16/18) vs. two or three doses of the 4vHPV vaccine [2D or 3D of 4vHPV] in 1075 healthy girls aged 9-14 years. Girls were randomized (1:1:1) to receive 2D of AS04-HPV-16/18 at months (M) 0, 6 (N = 359), 2D of 4vHPV at M0, 6 (N = 358) or 3D of 4vHPV at M0, 2, 6 (N = 358). 351, 339 and 346 girls, respectively, returned for the concluding visit at M36. Superiority was demonstrated at M7 and M12; comparison of the immune response to both vaccine antigens was made between 2D of AS04-HPV-16/18 and 2D or 3D of 4vHPV at subsequent time points in the according-to-protocol immunogenicity cohort (ATP-I; N = 958 at M36) and the total vaccinated cohort (TVC: N = 1036 at M36). HPV-16/18-specific T-cell- and B-cell-mediated immune responses and safety were also investigated. At M36, anti-HPV-16/18 ELISA responses in the 2D AS04-HPV-16/18 group remained superior to those of the 2D and 3D 4vHPV groups. In the M36 TVC, geometric mean titers were 2.78-fold (HPV-16) and 6.84-fold (HPV-18) higher for 2D of AS04-HPV-16/18 vs. 2D of 4vHPV and 2.3-fold (HPV-16) and 4.14-fold (HPV-18) higher vs. 3D of 4vHPV. Results were confirmed by vaccine pseudovirion-based neutralisation assay. Numbers of circulating CD4⁺ T cells and B cells appeared similar across groups. Safety was in line with the known safety profiles of both vaccines. In conclusion, superior HPV-16/18 antibody responses were elicited by 2D of the AS04-HPV-16/18 compared with 2D or 3D of the 4vHPV vaccine in girls aged 9-14 years.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT0146235.

Adolescent Participation in HPV Vaccine Clinical Trials: Are Parents Willing?

Approximately one-quarter of human papillomavirus (HPV) infections are acquired by adolescents, with a higher burden among racial/ethnic minorities. However, racial/ethnic minorities have been underrepresented in previous HPV vaccine trials. Ongoing and future HPV vaccine optimization trials would benefit from racially- and ethnically-diverse sample of adolescent trial participants. This study examined factors influencing parental willingness to consent to their adolescents' participation in HPV vaccine clinical trials and tested for possible racial differences. A convenience sample of parents of adolescents (N = 256) completed a cross-sectional survey. Chi square analyses were used to assess racial differences in parental HPV vaccine awareness and intentions and willingness to consent to their child participating in an HPV vaccine clinical trial. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with willingness. Approximately 47% of parents were willing to allow their adolescent to participate in HPV vaccine clinical trials (30.7% African American and 48.3% Caucasian, p = .081). African Americans had lower HPV vaccine awareness (p = .006) but not lower intentions to vaccinate (p = .086). Parental willingness was positively associated with the following variables: Child's age (p < .039), Perceived Advantages of HPV Vaccination for Adolescents (p = .002), Parental Trust in Medical Researchers (p < .001), and Level of Ease in Understanding Clinical Trial Information (p = .010). Educating parents about the advantages of HPV vaccines for younger adolescents using low-literacy educational materials and building trust between parents and researchers may increase parental willingness to consent to adolescent participation in HPV vaccine clinical trials.

Sustained Immunogenicity of 2-dose Human Papillomavirus 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted Vaccine Schedules in Girls Aged 9-14 Years: A Randomized Trial

Background.

We previously reported the noninferiority 1 month after the last dose of 2-dose human papillomavirus 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted (AS04-HPV-16/18) vaccine schedules at months 0 and 6 (2D_M0,6) and months 0 and 12 (2D_M0,12) in girls aged 9–14 years compared with a 3-dose schedule at months 0, 1, and 6 (3D_M0,1,6) in women aged 15–25 years. Here, we report the results at study end (month 36 [M36]).

Methods.

Girls were randomized 1:1 and received 2 vaccine doses either 6 months (2D_M0,6) or 12 months apart (2D_M0,12); women received 3 doses at months 0, 1, and 6 (3D_M0,1,6). Endpoints included noninferiority of HPV-16/18 antibodies for 2D_M0,6 versus 3D_M0,1,6; 2D_M0,12 versus 3D_M0,1,6; and 2D_M0,12 versus 2D_M0,6; and assessment of neutralizing antibodies, T cells, B cells, and safety.

Results.

At M36, the 2D_M0,6 and 2D_M0,12 schedules remained noninferior to the 3D_M0,1,6 schedule in terms of seroconversion rates and 3D/2D geometric mean titers for anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18. All schedules elicited sustained immune responses up to M36.

Conclusions.

Both 2-dose schedules in young girls remained noninferior to the 3-dose schedule in women up to study conclusion at M36. The AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine administered as a 2-dose schedule was immunogenic and well tolerated in young girls.

No pain no gain? Adjuvant effects of alum and monophosphoryl lipid A in pertussis and HPV vaccines

Development of non-infectious subunit vaccines is hampered by a slow pipeline of new adjuvants to replace or enhance alum in part because expectations of safety are high. Transient vaccine side effects are not clinical priorities because they cause no lasting harm and vaccine development has appropriately been focused on avoidance of serious adverse events. As a result, surprisingly little is known about the extent to which side effects caused by a vaccine's reactogencicity are predictive of successful immunization outcomes. Recent clinical studies of pertussis and human papillomavirus vaccines adjuvanted with alum or the TLR4 agonist monophosphoryl lipid A can be used to advance understanding of the relationship between vaccine side effects and immunization outcomes.

Primary Immunization of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in the Pediatric Population: What Is the Verdict Now?

The safety and efficacy of a 2-dose series for the human papillomavirus vaccines rather than a 3-dose series in older children has not been well defined. This article reviews the literature summarizing the use of all 3 HPV vaccines (2vHPV, 4vHPV, 9vHPV) as a 2-dose series for females and 4vHPV and 9vHPV for males younger than 15 years. Six prospective trials evaluating immunogenicity of a 2-dose series of 2vHPV and/or 4vHPV, as well as an ongoing prospective clinical trial for 9vHPV, are discussed. The 2-dose series with Gardasil 9^® in both males and females ages 9 to 14 years appears to be the most widely accepted recommendation. The exact time schedule between the 2 vaccines varies among studies, but it seems that they should be separated by 6 to 12 months. Federal and world-wide organizations' (ie, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and World Health Organization) opinions and recommendations on the appropriate scheduling of the vaccines are also highlighted.

Prevalence of oral human papillomavirus by vaccination status among young adults (18-30years old)

BACKGROUND

Although there is evidence that human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination may protect against oral HPV infection, no current research has demonstrated this in the general population.

METHODS

We used repeated cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2009 and 2014. Participants 18-30years who indicated whether they had received the HPV vaccine and provided an adequate oral sample were included (N=3040). Oral HPV types were grouped by vaccine-type (types 6, 11, 16, 18) and by risk (high or low risk). Chi-square analyses compared oral HPV prevalence by vaccination status.

RESULTS

Vaccinated adults had a lower prevalence of vaccine-type oral HPV (types 6, 11, 16, 18) compared to unvaccinated adults. Prevalence of non-vaccine high-risk oral HPV was similar between HPV vaccinated and unvaccinated participants.

CONCLUSIONS

HPV vaccination appears to provide protection against vaccine-type oral HPV infection among males and females in the general population.

HPV vaccines - A review of the first decade

Pre-adolescent girls (9-15years) have the option of receiving a two dose HPV vaccine series at either a six month or one year interval to provide protection from HPV 16, the most prevalent type associated with cervical cancers, as well as several other less prevalent types. This series of vaccinations is highly likely to protect her from HPV infection until she enters the routine screening program, whether that be primary HPV testing or a combination of HPV testing and cytology. The two dose program has been recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) since 2015. For women 15years and older, the three dose vaccine schedule is still recommended. The past ten years of Gardasil use has provided evidence of reduced HPV 16/18 infections in countries where there has been high coverage. Gardasil9 has replaced Gardasil. Gardasil9 has the same rapid anti-HPV 18 and HPV45 titer loss as Gardasil did. Cervarix remains equivalent to Gardasil9 in the prevention of HPV infections and precancers of any HPV type; Cervarix also has demonstrated sustained high antibody titers for at least 10years. One dose of Cervarix provides protection against HPV 16/18 infection with robust antibody titers well above natural infection titers. This may offer the easiest and most cost effective vaccination program over time, especially in low and lower middle income countries. Cervical cancer screening must continue to control cancer incidence over the upcoming decades. Future studies of prophylactic HPV vaccines, as defined by the WHO, must demonstrate protection against six month type specific persistent infections, not actual cervical cancer precursor disease endpoints, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN 3) or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS). This simplifies and makes less expensive future comparative studies between existing and new generic vaccines.

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.

A novel trivalent HPV 16/18/58 vaccine with anti-HPV 16 and 18 neutralizing antibody responses comparable to those induced by the Gardasil quadrivalent vaccine in rhesus macaque model

Persistent infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) is a key factor in the development of precancerous lesions and invasive cervical cancer. Prophylactic vaccines to immunize against HPV are an effective approach to reducing HPV related disease burden. In this study, we investigated the immunogenicity and dosage effect of a trivalent HPV 16/18/58 vaccine (3vHPV) produced in Escherichia coli (E.coli), with Gardasil quadrivalent vaccine (4vHPV, Merck & Co.) as a positive control. Sera collected from rhesus macaques vaccinated with three dosage formulations of 3vHPV (termed low-, mid-, and high-dosage formulations, respectively), and the 4vHPV vaccine were analyzed by both Pseudovirus-Based Neutralization Assay (PBNA) and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). Strong immune responses against HPV 16/18/58 were successfully elicited, and dosage-dependence was observed, with likely occurrence of immune interference between different L1-VLP antigens. HPV 16/18 specific neutralizing antibody (nAb) and total immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody responses in rhesus macaques receiving 3vHPV at the three dosages tested were generally non-inferior to those observed in rhesus macaques receiving 4vHPV throughout the study period. Particularly, HPV 18 nAb titers induced by the mid-dosage formulation that contained the same amounts of HPV 16/18 L1-VLPs as Gardasil 4vHPV were between 7.3 to 12.7-fold higher compared to the positive control arm from weeks 24-64. The durability of antibody responses specific to HPV 16/18 elicited by 3vHPV vaccines was also shown to be non-inferior to that associated with Gardasil 4vHPV.

Preventive vaccination against cervical cancer: Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology Guideline

After human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine guidelines published by Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) in 2011, new studies have been published, leading to additional data regarding efficacy, safety, number of vaccination rounds, and ideal age of vaccine administration. We searched and reviewed the literatures focused on the efficacy of 2-dose schedule vaccination, the efficacy of 3-dose schedule vaccination in middle-aged women, the ideal age of 3-dose schedule vaccination, the safety of HPV preventive vaccine, and the ability of cross-protection of each HPV preventive vaccine. The KSGO has revised the previous guideline based on the results of the above studies.

Gender-neutrality, herd effect and resilient immune response for sustainable impact of HPV vaccination

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarize the impact of various strategies of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, such as vaccinating only girls or both girls and boys.

RECENT FINDINGS

Slow and inefficient implementation of HPV vaccination programmes has delayed the impact of the first human cancer vaccine. Vaccinating only girls, with a rather low coverage, has led to a limited herd effect and, thus, not full use of the HPV vaccine potential.

SUMMARY

Gender-neutral vaccination based on comparative effectiveness research will hopefully soon tackle the whole spectrum of HPV cancers in both sexes. The remaining challenges are how to ensure resilience of HPV vaccine-induced immunity and herd effect to guarantee population-level impact of HPV vaccination, and how to guard against HPV type replacement.

Less than 3 doses of the HPV vaccine - Review of efficacy against virological and disease end points

World Health Organization (WHO) recommended 2 doses of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for girls below 15 y on the basis of the immune-bridging studies demonstrating non-inferior immune response of 2 doses in the adolescent girls compared to 3 doses in the young adult women in whom the efficacy against disease is established. The biological nature of the antigens (virus-like particles) constituting the HPV vaccine is responsible for the vigorous antibody response that may make the third dose redundant. The protection offered by 2 doses has been demonstrated in non-randomized clinical trials to be comparable to that offered by 3 doses against incident and persistent infections of vaccine targeted HPV types. However, results emerging from the ecological and nested case-control studies embedded in the population based screening programs of different countries indicate reduced efficacy of 2 doses against virological and disease end points. Some recent studies observed the protective effect of single dose of the vaccine against incident and persistent infections of the vaccine targeted HPV types to be similar to 3 doses in spite of immunological inferiority. The sample size, duration of follow-ups and number of events were limited in these studies. Longer follow ups of the less than 3 doses cohorts in the ongoing studies as well as appropriately designed and ethically justifiable randomized studies are needed to establish the protection offered by the alternative schedules at least beyond 10 y of vaccination.

An exploration of individual- and population-level impact of the 2-dose HPV vaccination schedule in pre-adolescent girls

Since 2014, several countries have implemented a 2-dose schedule for Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Licensure of the 2-dose schedule was based on non-inferiority results from immunobridging studies, comparing the antibody levels of the 2-dose schedule in young girls to those of the 3-dose schedule in young adults. Since licensure, additional data on antibody levels and other aspects of the immune response and clinical effectiveness have become available. This review will discuss the current outcomes on immunogenicity and effectiveness together with an exploration on the population impact of 2-dose schedules from a cost-effectiveness perspective. The 2-dose schedule has important benefits, such as easier logistics, reduced expenditure, potentially higher acceptance and fewer side effects. Policymakers and registration authorities should consider whether these benefits outweigh the likely differences on individual- and population-level impact between the 2- and 3-dose schedules.

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.