Response letter regarding the letter to the editors by Brown et al

Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Efficacy and Effectiveness against Cancer

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection, with 15 HPV types related to cervical, anal, oropharyngeal, penile, vulvar, and vaginal cancers. However, cervical cancer remains one of the most common cancers in women, especially in developing countries. Three HPV vaccines have been licensed: bivalent (Cervarix, GSK, Rixensart, Belgium), quadrivalent (Merck, Sharp & Dome (Merck & Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA)), and nonavalent (Merck, Sharp & Dome (Merck & Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA)). The current HPV vaccine recommendations apply to 9 years old and above through the age of 26 years and adults aged 27–45 years who might be at risk of new HPV infection and benefit from vaccination. The primary target population for HPV vaccination recommended by the WHO is girls aged 9–14 years, prior to their becoming sexually active, to undergo a two-dose schedule and girls ≥ 15 years of age, to undergo a three-dose schedule. Safety data for HPV vaccines have indicated that they are safe. The most common adverse side-effect was local symptoms. HPV vaccines are highly immunogenic. The efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines has been remarkably high among young women who were HPV seronegative before vaccination. Vaccine efficacy was lower among women regardless of HPV DNA when vaccinated and among adult women. Comparisons of the efficacy of bivalent, quadrivalent, and nonavalent vaccines against HPV 16/18 showed that they are similar. However, the nonavalent vaccine can provide additional protection against HPV 31/33/45/52/58. In a real-world setting, the notable decrease of HPV 6/11/16/18 among vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women shows the vaccine to be highly effective. Moreover, the direct effect of the nonavalent vaccine with the cross-protection of bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines results in the reduction of HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58. HPV vaccination has been shown to provide herd protection as well. Two-dose HPV vaccine schedules showed no difference in seroconversion from three-dose schedules. However, the use of a single-dose HPV vaccination schedule remains controversial. For males, the quadrivalent HPV vaccine possibly reduces the incidence of external genital lesions and persistent infection with HPV 6/11/16/18. Evidence regarding the efficacy and risk of HPV vaccination and HIV infection remains limited. HPV vaccination has been shown to be highly effective against oral HPV type 16/18 infection, with a significant percentage of participants developing IgG antibodies in the oral fluid post vaccination. However, the vaccines’ effectiveness in reducing the incidence of and mortality rates from HPV-related head and neck cancers should be observed in the long term. In anal infections and anal intraepithelial neoplasia, the vaccines demonstrate high efficacy. While HPV vaccines are very effective, screening for related cancers, as per guidelines, is still recommended.

Cost-Utility of a Two-Dose Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Programme Added to Cervical Cancer Screening Compared with Cervical Cancer Screening Alone in Korea

Background: Cervical cancer is caused by the human papillomavirus and is a leading cause of cancer death among young Korean women. Current screening programmes could benefit from the addition of HPV vaccination into their schedule to help reduce disease burden. Two-dose vaccination schedules targeting HPV types 16 and 18, which are responsible for most cervical cancer cases, have recently been approved. Of the two available vaccines, AS04-adjuvanted HPV16/18 vaccine (AS04-HPV16/18v) provides greater protection against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV, while HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (4vHPVv) provides protection against genital warts. Methods: The health and economic consequences of introducing a two-dose HPV vaccination programme in 12-year-old girls together with screening were assessed in the Korean healthcare setting using a previously-published Markov model. Results: Compared with screening alone, AS04-HPV16/18v was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below and within the Korean Won [KRW] 20-30 million treshold). When comparing the two vaccines, at 3% discount rate, AS04-HPV16/18v dominated 4vHPVv (i.e., provided 174 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), 304 more life-years (LYs) and cost-savings of KRW 980 million). At a 5% discount rate, AS04-HPV16/18v provided comparable QALYs (albeit 5 fewer), 105 more LYs and cost-savings of KRW 292 million compared with 4vHPVv. Results were particularly sensitive to the discount rate used, as the health benefits of preventing cervical cancer are observed much later than those of preventing genital warts. Conclusion: For the Korean setting, HPV vaccination with a two-dose schedule is a cost-effective option, and AS04-HPV16/18v is likely to offer better health outcomes at a cost-saving compared with 4vHPVv.

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.