Spotlight on quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, 18) recombinant vaccine(Gardasil®) in the prevention of premalignant genital lesions, genital cancer, and genital warts in women

The HPV Serology Laboratory leads an initiative to standardize and harmonize human papillomavirus serology assays

The HPV Serology Laboratory is leading a global partnership initiative aiming for standardization and harmonization of current serology assay platforms being used to assess immune responses to HPV vaccines. Serology standardization is particularly important given the increasing number of immunobridging trials relying on serology data for approval of new vaccine dosing schedules or vaccine formulations. The initiative was established in 2017 to enable comparisons of data between different vaccines and relevant studies as well as expedite the implementation of new vaccines and vaccine indications. The HPV Serology Laboratory has held or attended several meetings with partnering laboratories, including international meetings in 2017, 2018, and 2021.

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.

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.

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.

Distribution of human papillomavirus genotypes (2014–2016) in women with genital warts at a sexually transmitted disease clinic in Beijing, China

Aim: The aim of this study was to analyze the distribution of human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes among women with genital warts in the Beijing region of China. Methods: A total of 350 women diagnosed with genital warts between 2014 and 2016 were analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to test for high-risk and low-risk HPV subtypes. Results: The results show that 52.6% (184/350) of cases were positive for HPV6+11. The three most common high-risk HPVs detected were HPV52, HPV16 and HPV58, detected in 12.0% (42/350), 10.6% (37/350) and 10.0% (35/350) of all cases, respectively. Conclusion: These results indicate that vaccines targeting HPV subtypes 6, 11, 16, 52 and 58 would have the greatest impact among sexually active women living in Beijing.

Human Papillomavirus in Thai Women and Men with Anogenital Warts

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> Anogenital warts are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Globally, HPV genotypes 6 and 11 are most often associated with anogenital warts. However, the diversity of HPV genotypes found in patients with genital warts in Thailand is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate HPV-associated anogenital warts in the Thai population and to assess whether genotypes found are represented in the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccine. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This study included 206 anogenital swab samples from patients who were diagnosed with anogenital warts. Detection of HPV DNA was performed using polymerase chain reaction to amplify the L1 gene and sequencing.<b><i> Results:</i></b> HPV was identified in 88.3% (182/206) of the samples. The majority of HPV genotypes were low-risk genotypes HPV6 (36.9%) and HPV11 (36.4%), which represented the most common infection found in genital warts in this study. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Immunization with the quadrivalent vaccine (HPV6, HPV11, HPV16, and HPV18) could potentially prevent genital warts caused by HPV infection.

Antibody detection in tear samples as a surrogate to monitor host immunity against papillomavirus infections in vaccinated and naturally infected hosts

Monitoring serum antibodies against natural infections or after immunizations has been a standard clinical diagnostic procedure. However, collecting blood samples requires trained personnel, and may cause discomfort and increase the risk of complications. In this study, we investigated whether tear samples could serve as a surrogate for serum samples to measure specific antibodies. A widely used preclinical cottontail rabbit papillomavirus (CRPV)/rabbit model has been a surrogate model for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infections. New Zealand white rabbits, either naturally infected with CRPV or immunized with two clinically available HPV vaccines (Gardasil and Cervarix), were examined for antibody generation in both tear and serum samples. We demonstrated that antibodies were detectable in tears from both naturally infected as well as vaccinated animals. Overall, the antibody levels in tears were ~10-fold lower than those from the corresponding serum samples, but background noise was lower in tear samples. The isotypes of antibodies in tears were predominantly IgA and IgG. These findings showed clearly that tears could be a surrogate for serum samples for monitoring antibody responses. As collecting tears causes no discomfort and poses no risk to patients, it represents a novel and promising method for monitoring future HPV epidemiological studies as well as for use in clinical practice.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of L1-VLP-based human papillomavirus vaccine efficacy against anogenital pre-cancer in women with evidence of prior HPV exposure

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether L1-VLP-based human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are efficacious in reducing the likelihood of anogenital pre-cancer in women with evidence of prior vaccine-type HPV exposure. This study aims to determine whether the combined results of the vaccine trials published to date provide evidence of efficacy compared with control (hepatitis A vaccine/placebo).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of identified studies. The bivalent vaccine containing HPV-16 and 18 VLPs from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (Rixenstart, Belgium), the quadrivalent vaccine containing HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 VLPs from Merck & Co., Inc., (Whitehouse Station, NJ USA), and the HPV-16 monovalent vaccine from Merck Research Laboratories (West Point, PA USA) were evaluated.

FINDINGS

Three RCT reports and two post-trial cohort studies were eligible, comprising data from 13,482 women who were included in the vaccine studies but had evidence of HPV infection at study entry. Data on efficacy was synthesized using the Mantel-Haenszel weighted fixed-effect approach, or where there was heterogeneity between studies, the DerSimonian and Laird weighted random-effect approach. The mean odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the association between Cervarix, Gardasil and HPV-16 monovalent vaccine and HPV-associated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse was 0·90 (95% CI: 0·56, 1·44). For the association between Gardasil and HPV-associated vulval/vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2-3, the overall OR and 95% CI was 2.25 (95% CI: 0·78, 6.50). Sample size and follow-up were limited.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence that HPV vaccines are effective in preventing vaccine-type HPV associated pre-cancer in women with evidence of prior HPV exposure. Small effects of vaccination however cannot be excluded and a longer-term benefit in preventing re-infection remains possible.

Global Inhibition of DC Priming Capacity in the Spleen of Self-Antigen Vaccinated Mice Requires IL-10

Dendritic cells (DC) in the spleen are highly activated following intravenous vaccination with a foreign-antigen, promoting expansion of effector T cells, but remain phenotypically and functionally immature after vaccination with a self-antigen. Up-regulation or suppression of expression of a cohort of pancreatic enzymes 24–72 h post-vaccination can be used as a biomarker of stimulatory versus tolerogenic DC, respectively. Here we show, using MUC1 transgenic mice and a vaccine based on the MUC1 peptide, which these mice perceive as a self-antigen, that the difference in enzyme expression that predicts whether DC will promote immune response or immune tolerance is seen as early as 4–8 h following vaccination. We also identify early production of IL-10 as a predominant factor that both correlates with this early-time point and controls DC function. Pre-treating mice with an antibody against the IL-10 receptor prior to vaccination results in DC that up-regulate CD40, CD80, and CD86 and promote stronger IFNγ+ T cell responses. This study suggests that transient inhibition of IL-10 prior to vaccination could improve responses to cancer vaccines that utilize self-tumor antigens.

Nanotechnological Approaches for Genetic Immunization

Genetic immunization is one of the important findings that provide multifaceted immunological response against infectious diseases. With the advent of r-DNA technology, it is possible to construct vector with immunologically active genes against specific pathogens. Nevertheless, site-specific delivery of constructed genetic material is an important contributory factor for eliciting specific cellular and humoral immune response. Nanotechnology has demonstrated immense potential for the site-specific delivery of biomolecules. Several polymeric and lipidic nanocarriers have been utilized for the delivery of genetic materials. These systems seem to have better compatibility, low toxicity, economical and capable to delivering biomolecules to intracellular site for the better expression of desired antigens. Further, surface engineering of nanocarriers and targeting approaches have an ability to offer better presentation of antigenic material to immunological cells. This chapter gives an overview of existing and emerging nanotechnological approaches for the delivery of genetic materials.

Prevention of oncological diseases: primary and secondary prevention

Cancer is the leading cause of death worldwide. Because there is presently no cure for cancer, the best strategy to combat oncological diseases is through early detection and prevention. The methods currently available are vaccines to target specific viruses (primary prevention), in combination with screening (secondary prevention), use of biomarkers, and administration of adjuvant therapy (tertiary prevention). Modifiable lifestyle-related risk factors are also important in cancer prevention. Vaccination has been proven to be highly effective against targeted diseases leading to the development of cancer, particularly if the vaccination is given in the early years of life. The need for regular screening (for breast cancer, cervical cancer, etc.) should not be neglected and should be followed to detect unusual changes or abnormalities in the body. With discoveries as targeted therapies, adjuvant treatment becomes a secure component of tertiary prevention in the betterment of disease management. The discovery of biomarkers and subsequent targeted therapies has led to personalized medicine as the current trend in cancer care.