A systematic review of immunogenicity, clinical efficacy and safety of human papillomavirus vaccines in people living with the human immunodeficiency virus

An in-depth analysis of COVID-19 treatment: Present situation and prospects

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) the most contagious infection caused by the unique type of coronavirus known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), produced a global pandemic that wreaked havoc on the health-care system, resulting in high morbidity and mortality. Several methods were implemented to tackle the virus, including the repurposing of existing medications and the development of vaccinations. The purpose of this article is to provide a complete summary of the current state and future possibilities for COVID-19 therapies. We describe the many treatment classes, such as antivirals, immunomodulators, and monoclonal antibodies, that have been repurposed or developed to treat COVID-19. We also looked at the clinical evidence for these treatments, including findings from observational studies and randomized-controlled clinical trials, and highlighted the problems and limitations of the available evidence. Furthermore, we reviewed existing clinical trials and prospective COVID-19 therapeutic options, such as novel medication candidates and combination therapies. Finally, we discussed the long-term consequences of COVID-19 and the importance of ongoing research into the development of viable treatments. This review will help physicians, researchers, and policymakers to understand the prevention and mitigation of COVID-19.

Efficacy and Durability of Immune Response after Receipt of HPV Vaccines in People Living with HIV

People living with HIV (PLH) experience higher rates of HPV infection as well as an increased risk of HPV-related disease, including malignancies. Although they are considered a high-priority group for HPV vaccination, there are limited data regarding the long-term immunogenicity and efficacy of HPV vaccines in this population. Seroconversion rates and geometric mean titers elicited by vaccination are lower in PLH compared to immunocompetent participants, especially in individuals with CD4 counts below 200 cells/mm³ and a detectable viral load. The significance of these differences is still unclear, as a correlate of protection has not been identified. Few studies have focused on demonstrating vaccine efficacy in PLH, with variable results depending on the age at vaccination and baseline seropositivity. Although waning humoral immunity for HPV seems to be more rapid in this population, there is evidence that suggests that seropositivity lasts at least 2-4 years following vaccination. Further research is needed to determine the differences between vaccine formulations and the impact of administrating additional doses on durability of immune protection.

Immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of the HPV vaccines among people living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Vaccines have been demonstrated to protect against high-risk human papillomavirus infection (HPV), including HPV-16/18, and cervical lesions among HIV negative women. However, their efficacy remains uncertain for people living with HIV (PLHIV).We systematically reviewed available evidence on HPV vaccine on immunological, virological, or other biological outcomes in PLHIV.

Methods

We searched five electronic databases (PubMed, Medline and Embase, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO clinical trial database) for longitudinal prospective studies reporting immunogenicity, virological, cytological, histological, clinical or safety endpoints following prophylactic HPV vaccination among PLHIV. We included studies published by February 11th, 2021. We summarized results, assessed study quality, and conducted meta-analysis and subgroup analyses, where possible.

Findings

We identified 43 publications stemming from 18 independent studies (Ns =18), evaluating the quadrivalent (Ns =15), bivalent (Ns =4) and nonavalent (Ns =1) vaccines. A high proportion seroconverted for the HPV vaccine types. Pooled proportion seropositive by 28 weeks following 3 doses with the bivalent, quadrivalent, and nonavalent vaccines were 0.99 (95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.00, Ns =1), 0.99 (0.98-1.00, Ns =9), and 1.00 (0.99-1.00, Ns =1) for HPV-16 and 0.99 (0.96-1.00, Ns =1), 0.94 (0.91-0.96, Ns =9), and 1.00 (0.99-1.00, Ns =1) for HPV-18, respectively. Seropositivity remained high among people who received 3 doses despite some declines in antibody titers and lower seropositivity over time, especially for HPV-18, for the quadrivalent than the bivalent vaccine, and for HIV positive than negative individuals. Seropositivity for HPV-18 at 29-99 weeks among PLHIV was 0.72 (0.66-0.79, Ns =8) and 0.96 (0.92-0.99, Ns =2) after 3 doses of the quadrivalent and bivalent vaccine, respectively and 0.94 (0.90-0.98, Ns =3) among HIV-negative historical controls. Evidence suggests that the seropositivity after vaccination declines over time but it can lasts at least 2-4 years. The vaccines were deemed safe among PLHIV with few serious adverse events. Evidence of HPV vaccine efficacy against acquisition of HPV infection and/or associated disease from the eight trials available was inconclusive due to the low quality.

Interpretation

PLHIV have a robust and safe immune response to HPV vaccination. Antibody titers and seropositivity rates decline over time but remain high. The lack of a formal correlate of protection and efficacy results preclude definitive conclusions on the clinical benefits. Nevertheless, given the burden of HPV disease in PLHIV, although the protection may be shorter or less robust against HPV-18, the robust immune response suggests that PLHIV may benefit from receiving HPV vaccination after acquiring HIV. Better quality studies are needed to demonstrate the clinical efficacy among PLHIV.

Funding

World Health Organization. MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, UK Medical Research Council (MRC).

Vaccination for the Prevention of Infection among Immunocompromised Patients: A Concise Review of Recent Systematic Reviews

Vaccination is crucial for avoiding infection-associated morbidity and mortality among immunocompromised patients. However, immunocompromised patients respond less well to vaccinations compared to healthy people, and little is known about the relative efficacy of various vaccines among different immunocompromised states. A total of 54 systematic reviews (22 COVID-19; 32 non-COVID-19) published within the last 5 years in Pubmed® were reviewed. They demonstrated similar patterns within three seroconversion response categories: good (about >60% when compared to healthy controls), intermediate (~40−60%), and poor (about <40%). Good vaccine responses would be expected for patients with chronic kidney disease, human immunodeficiency virus infection (normal CD4 counts), immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, post-splenectomy states, and solid tumors. Intermediate vaccine responses would be expected for patients with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 therapy, hematologic cancer, and human immunodeficiency virus infection (low CD4 counts). Poor vaccine responses would be expected for patients with B-cell-depleting agents (e.g., anti-CD20 therapy), hematopoietic stem-cell transplant, solid organ transplant, and liver cirrhosis. For all vaccine response categories, vaccination should be timed when patients are least immunosuppressed. For the intermediate and poor vaccine response categories, high-dose vaccine, revaccination when patients are less immunosuppressed, checking for seroconversion, additional booster doses, and long-acting monoclonal antibodies may be considered, supplemented by shielding measures.

COVID-19 vaccines

COVID-19 is a pandemic of unprecedented proportions in recent human history. Less than 18 months since the onset of the pandemic, there are close to two hundred million confirmed cases and four million deaths worldwide. There have also been massive efforts geared towards finding safe and effective vaccines. By July 2021 there were 184 COVID-19 vaccine candidates in pre-clinical development, 105 in clinical development, and 18 vaccines approved for emergency use by at least one regulatory authority. These vaccines include whole virus live attenuated or inactivated, protein-based, viral vector, and nucleic acid vaccines. By mid-2021 three billion doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered around the world, mostly in high-income countries. COVID-19 vaccination provides hope for an end to the pandemic, if and only if there would be equal access and optimal uptake in all countries around the world.

Mannose-Modified Liposome Co-Delivery of Human Papillomavirus Type 16 E7 Peptide and CpG Oligodeoxynucleotide Adjuvant Enhances Antitumor Activity Against Established Large TC-1 Grafted Tumors in Mice

Background

Previously, we demonstrated the therapeutic efficacy of a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, including HPV16 E7 peptide and CpG oligodeoxynucleotides (CpG ODN), against small TC-1 grafted tumors. Here, we developed an HPV16 E7 peptide and CpG ODN vaccine delivered using liposomes modified with DC-targeting mannose, Lip E7/CpG, and determined its anti-tumor effects and influence on systemic immune responses and the tumor microenvironment (TME) in a mouse large TC-1 grafted tumor model.

Methods

L-alpha-phosphatidyl choline (SPC), cholesterol (CHOL), 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine-N-[methoxy (polyethylene glycol-2000)] (DSPE-PEG-2000), 1,2-dioleoyl-3-trimethylammonium-propane chloride salt (DOTAP) and Mannose-PEG-DSPE, loaded with HPV16 E7 peptide and CpG ODN, were used to construct the Lip E7/CpG vaccine. The anti-tumor effects and potential mechanism of Lip E7/CpG were assessed by assays of tumor growth inhibition, immune cells, in vivo cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) responses and cytokines, chemokines, CD31, Ki67 and p53 expression in the TME. In addition, toxicity of Lip E7/CpG to major organs was evaluated.

Results

Lip E7/CpG had a diameter of 122.21±8.37 nm and remained stable at 4°C for 7 days. Co-delivery of HPV16 E7 peptide and CpG ODN by liposomes exerted potent anti-tumor effects in large (tumor volume ≥200mm³) TC-1 grafted tumor-bearing mice with inhibition rates of 80% and 78% relative to the control and Free E7/CpG groups, respectively. Vaccination significantly increased numbers of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, and IFN-γ-producing cells in spleens and tumors and enhanced HPV-specific CTL responses, while reducing numbers of inhibitory cells including myeloid-derived suppressor cells and macrophages. Expression of cytokines and chemokines was altered and formation of tumor blood vessels was reduced in the Lip E7/CpG group, indicating possible modulation of the immunosuppressive TME to promote anti-tumor responses. Lip E7/CpG did not cause morphological changes in major organs.

Conclusion

Lip E7/CpG induced anti-tumor effects by enhancing cellular immunity and improving tumor-associated immunosuppression. Mannose-modified liposomes are the promising vaccine delivery strategy for cancer immunotherapy.

Serum and cervicovaginal IgG immune responses against α7 and α9 HPV in non-vaccinated women at risk for cervical cancer: Implication for catch-up prophylactic HPV vaccination

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer associated with high risk-human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection is becoming the one of the most common female cancer in many sub-Saharan African countries. First-generation immigrant African women living in Europe are at-risk for cervical cancer, in a context of social vulnerability, with frequent lack of cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to address immunologically the issue of catch-up prophylactic HPV vaccination in first-generation African immigrant women living in France.

METHODS

IgG immune responses and cross-reactivities to α7 (HPV-18, -45 and -68) and α9 (HPV-16, -31, -33, -35, -52 and -58) HPV types, including 7 HR-HPV targeted by the Gardasil-9® prophylactic vaccine, were evaluated in paired serum and cervicovaginal secretions (CVS) by HPV L1-virus-like particles-based ELISA. Genital HPV were detected by multiplex real time PCR (Seegene, Seoul, South Korea).

RESULTS

Fifty-one immigrant women (mean age, 41.7 years; 72.5% HIV-infected) were prospectively included. More than two-third (68.6%) of them carried genital HPV (group I) while 31.4% were negative (group II). The majority (90.2%) exhibited serum IgG to at least one α7/α9 HR-HPV. Serum HPV-specific IgG were more frequently detected in group I than group II (100% versus 68.7%; P = 0.002). The distribution of serum and genital HPV-specific IgG was similar, but mean number of IgG reactivities to α7/α9 HR-HPV was higher in serum than CVS (5.6 IgG per woman in serum versus 3.2 in CVS; P<0.001). Rates of IgG cross-reactivities against HPV different from detected cervicovaginal HPV were higher in serum and CVS in group I than group II. Finally, the majority of groups I and II women (68.6% and 68.7%, respectively) exhibited serum or cervicovaginal IgG to Gardasil-9® HR-HPV, with higher mean rates in group I than group II (6.1 Gardasil-9® HR-HPV per woman versus 1.4; P<0.01). One-third (31.2%) of group II women did not show any serum and genital HPV-specific IgG.

CONCLUSIONS

Around two-third of first-generation African immigrant women living in France showed frequent ongoing genital HPV infection and high rates of circulating and genital IgG to α7/α9 HPV, generally cross-reacting, avoiding the possibility of catch-up vaccination. Nevertheless, about one-third of women had no evidence of previous HPV infection, or showed only low levels of genital and circulating HR-HPV-specific IgG and could therefore be eligible for catch-up vaccination.

Improving vaccination uptake among adolescents

BACKGROUND

Adolescent vaccination has received increased attention since the Global Vaccine Action Plan's call to extend the benefits of immunisation more equitably beyond childhood. In recent years, many programmes have been launched to increase the uptake of different vaccines in adolescent populations; however, vaccination coverage among adolescents remains suboptimal. Therefore, understanding and evaluating the various interventions that can be used to improve adolescent vaccination is crucial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of interventions to improve vaccine uptake among adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2018, we searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and eight other databases. In addition, we searched two clinical trials platforms, electronic databases of grey literature, and reference lists of relevant articles. For related systematic reviews, we searched four databases. Furthermore, in May 2019, we performed a citation search of five other websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies of adolescents (girls or boys aged 10 to 19 years) eligible for World Health Organization-recommended vaccines and their parents or healthcare providers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened records, reviewed full-text articles to identify potentially eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by consensus. For each included study, we calculated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) where appropriate. We pooled study results using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies (eight individually randomised trials, four cluster randomised trials, three non-randomised trials, and one controlled before-after study). Twelve studies were conducted in the USA, while there was one study each from: Australia, Sweden, Tanzania, and the UK. Ten studies had unclear or high risk of bias. We categorised interventions as recipient-oriented, provider-oriented, or health systems-oriented. The interventions targeted adolescent boys or girls or both (seven studies), parents (four studies), and providers (two studies). Five studies had mixed participants that included adolescents and parents, adolescents and healthcare providers, and parents and healthcare providers. The outcomes included uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) (11 studies); hepatitis B (three studies); and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (Tdap), meningococcal, HPV, and influenza (three studies) vaccines among adolescents. Health education improves HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.76; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 1054 participants; high-certainty evidence). In addition, one large study provided evidence that a complex multi-component health education intervention probably results in little to no difference in hepatitis B vaccine uptake compared to simplified information leaflets on the vaccine (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99; 17,411 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Financial incentives may improve HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.99; 1 study, 500 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain whether combining health education and financial incentives has an effect on hepatitis B vaccine uptake, compared to usual practice (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.00; 1 study, 104 participants; very low certainty evidence). Mandatory vaccination probably leads to a large increase in hepatitis B vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 3.92, 95% CI 3.65 to 4.20; 1 study, 6462 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Provider prompts probably make little or no difference compared to usual practice, on completion of Tdap (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.80; 2 studies, 3296 participants), meningococcal (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.79; 2 studies, 3219 participants), HPV (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.81; 2 studies, 859 participants), and influenza (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.34; 2 studies, 1439 participants) vaccination schedules (moderate-certainty evidence). Provider education with performance feedback may increase the proportion of adolescents who are offered and accept HPV vaccination by clinicians, compared to usual practice. Compared to adolescents visiting non-participating clinicians (in the usual practice group), the adolescents visiting clinicians in the intervention group were more likely to receive the first dose of HPV during preventive visits (5.7 percentage points increase) and during acute visits (0.7 percentage points for the first and 5.6 percentage points for the second doses of HPV) (227 clinicians and more than 200,000 children; low-certainty evidence). A class-based school vaccination strategy probably leads to slightly higher HPV vaccine uptake than an age-based school vaccination strategy (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.13; 1 study, 5537 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A multi-component provider intervention (including an education session, repeated contacts, individualised feedback, and incentives) probably improves uptake of HPV vaccine compared to usual practice (moderate-certainty evidence). A multi-component intervention targeting providers and parents involving social marketing and health education may improve HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.59; 1 study, 25,869 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Various strategies have been evaluated to improve adolescent vaccination including health education, financial incentives, mandatory vaccination, and class-based school vaccine delivery. However, most of the evidence is of low to moderate certainty. This implies that while this research provides some indication of the likely effect of these interventions, the likelihood that the effects will be substantially different is high. Therefore, additional research is needed to further enhance adolescent immunisation strategies, especially in low- and middle-income countries where there are limited adolescent vaccination programmes. In addition, it is critical to understand the factors that influence hesitancy, acceptance, and demand for adolescent vaccination in different settings. This is the topic of an ongoing Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis, which may help to explain why and how some interventions were more effective than others in increasing adolescent HPV vaccination coverage.