Immunogenicity and safety of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in healthy Chinese girls and women aged 9 to 45 years

The Non-inferiority of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Immunogenicity Among Women Over 26 Years: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Demonstrate the immunogenicity of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for the older age group (above 26 years) to prevent HPV infection with high-risk types and argue for extending vaccination recommendations for the older age group.

METHODS

Two authors searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2023 to collect information on clinical trials of HPV vaccine immunogenicity. The database search strategy used a combination of subject terms and free terms. Two authors first identified studies by reading the title, abstract, and full texts and, subsequently, based on the inclusion criteria. Studies eligible to be included are the clinical trials using one of the following types of HPV vaccines: 2vHPV, 4vHPV, and 9vHPV, and measuring the immunogenicity by the geometric mean concentration or titer (GMC/T) and seroconversion rate (SCR) among healthy women aged 9 to 55 years who had never received a prophylactic HPV vaccine, known serostatus for HPV, non-immunocompetence, or non-pregnant.

RESULTS

This review included nine articles, seven RCTs, and two open-labeled studies.

CONCLUSION

In summary, we have demonstrated that the immunogenicity of the HPV vaccines is non-inferior in the older age group. Even though the GMT declines with age, the SCR is similar in all age groups regardless of the serostatus. The immunogenicity of the bivalent vaccine is superior to that of the quadrivalent vaccine for the older age group. Additionally, the vaccine is more efficient in women under the age of 26, but older women will benefit from it.

A feasibility assessment of real-world data capabilities for monitoring vaccine safety and effectiveness in China: Human papillomavirus vaccination in the Yinzhou district as a use case

BACKGROUND

Real-world data (RWD) are increasingly used to generate real-world evidence (RWE) of vaccine safety and effectiveness for regulatory purposes. Assessing feasibility of using RWD sources prior to implementing observational studies is recommended. As a use case, we described the process and findings of a feasibility assessment to identify reliable and relevant data sources for monitoring the safety and effectiveness of the AS04-HPV-16/18 human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in China.

METHODS

Iterative multi-step process: (1) targeted literature review and data source mapping; (2) expert opinion from national RWD experts; (3) survey to evaluate the identified data source operational infrastructure; and (4) continuous appraisal of published studies using the identified data source.

RESULTS

The Yinzhou Regional Health Information Platform (YRHIP) was identified as a data source of main interest, based on its large population coverage, high cervical cancer screening rates, and availability of adult electronic immunization records. Field meetings with national RWD experts confirmed its suitability for post-authorization vaccine studies. Survey results showed that exposure data and relevant safety and effectiveness endpoints were recorded and linkable at the individual level across the platform. Iterative appraisal of emerging evidence from the literature corroborated these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility assessment indicates that the YRHIP has the capacity to capture demographic, exposure, outcome and other data required to generate RWE on HPV vaccine safety and effectiveness in China. Studies using the YRHIP to monitor the AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine in routine use building on this feasibility assessment are ongoing.

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.

Safety and immunogenicity of a pichia pastoris-expressed bivalent human papillomavirus (types 16 and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in healthy Chinese women aged 9-45 years: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 clinical trial

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of high and low doses of a novel pichia pastoris-expressed bivalent (types 16 and 18) human papillomavirus (HPV) virus-like particle vaccine.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial, we enrolled 160 healthy females aged 9-45 years in Guangxi, China who were randomized (1:1:2) to receive either low (0.5 mL) or high (1.0 mL) dosages of bivalent HPV vaccine, or placebo (aluminum adjuvant) in a 0, 2, 6 months schedule. Adverse events and other significant conditions that occurred within 30 days after each vaccination were recorded throughout the trial. Sera were collected at days 0, 60, 180 and 210 to measure anti-HPV 16/18 neutralizing antibodies.

RESULTS

A total of 160 participants received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine and 152 completed the three dose vaccination series. Reporting rates of adverse events in placebo, low dose (0.5 mL) and high dose (1.0 mL) groups were 47.5 %, 55.0 % and 55.0 %, respectively. No serious adverse events occurred during this trial. 100 % of the participants who received three doses of the HPV vaccine produced neutralizing antibodies against HPV 16/18 vaccine. For HPV 16 and HPV 18, the geometric mean titers (GMTs) were similar between the low dose group (GMT_{HPV 16} = 10816 [95 % CI: 7824-14953]), GMT_{HPV 18} = 3966 [95 % CI: 2693-5841]) and high dose group (GMT _{HPV 16} = 14482 [95 % CI: 10848-19333], GMT _{HPV 18} = 3428 [95 % CI: 2533-4639]).

CONCLUSION

The pichia pastoris-expressed bivalent HPV vaccine was safe and immunogenic in Chinese females aged 9-45 years. The low dosage (0.5 mL) was selected for further immunogenicity and efficacy study.

Immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of human papillomavirus vaccine: Data from China

The incidence rate and mortality rate of cervical cancer have steadily increased in young women in China. Therefore, it is critical to improve HPV vaccination rates, particularly for the younger population. There are currently five types of prophylactic vaccines in China: bivalent HPV vaccine (AS04-HPV-16/18), quadrivalent HPV vaccine, 9-valent HPV vaccine, homemade Escherichia coli-produced HPV bivalent vaccine, and Pichia pastoris produced HPV bivalent vaccine. All these five HPV vaccines have completed relevant clinical trials in China, and have been proven to be generally well-tolerated and immunogenic, efficacious against persistent HPV-related infections and genital precancerous lesions (data for 9-valent HPV vaccine is absent), and have demonstrated acceptable safety profiles, as previously shown in global studies. Given that the HPV vaccination rate in China is still very low, additional HPV vaccine coverage is needed to reduce the incidence and mortality rates of cervical cancer.

Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of HPV vaccination in Chinese population: A meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of HPV vaccination in Chinese population.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2022 were searched to collect information on clinical trials of HPV vaccines. Database search strategy used a combination of subject terms and free terms. Studies were first identified by two authors through reading the title, abstract and full texts and, subsequently, based on the inclusion criteria: Chinese population, with at least one of the following outcomes (efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety), and HPV vaccine RCT, those eligible were included in this paper. Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety data, pooled by random effects models, are presented as risk ratios [95% confidence intervals (CI)].

Results

Eleven RCTs and four follow-up studies were included. Meta-analysis showed that HPV vaccine had good profile of efficacy and immunogenicity. The seroconversion rates were significantly higher among the vaccinated, uninfected (initial negative serum antibody) population than the placebo population for both HPV-16 (RR 29.10; 95% CI: 8.40-100.82) and HPV-18 (RR 24.15; 95% CI: 3.82-152.84), respectively. A significant reduction of the incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1+) (RR 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01-0.23) and CIN2+ (RR 0.09; 95% CI: 0.02-0.40) was also measured. Risk for serious adverse events after HPV vaccination indicated comparable outcomes between vaccination and placebo.

Conclusions

For Chinese populations, HPV vaccines enhance the level of HPV16- and HPV18-specific antibodies and reduce the incidence of CIN1+ and CIN2+ in uninfected population. Also, the risk of serious adverse events in both groups are almost equivalent. More data are needed to establish vaccine efficacy with cervical cancer.

Progression from human papillomavirus (HPV) infection to cervical lesion or clearance in women (18-25 years): Natural history study in the control arm subjects of AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine efficacy study in China between 2008 and 2016

BACKGROUND

: Cervical cancer is the third most frequent cancer in Chinese women aged 15-44 years old. Human papillomavirus (HPV) is recognized as the main etiologic agent of cervical carcinomas. This study aims to better understand the natural history of HPV infections in Chinese women aged 18-25 years.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data from 3,025 control arm women (AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine trial) were analyzed to assess the probability of progression or clearance from a 6-month persistent infection (6MPI) to a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN2+), and the association with clinical determinants. Data were analyzed using univariate and multivariable Cox models.

RESULTS

A total of 1,324 women with 3,814 HPV infections were included, and 65.7% of the women had at least one 6MPI. Among those 6MPI, 5.0% progressed to CIN2+, while 61.0% cleared within 6 months. The risk of progression from 6MPI to CIN2+ was substantially higher for oncogenic versus non-oncogenic HPV types.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncogenic HPV infections showed lower clearance and higher risk to progress to CIN2+. These findings observed in a population of Chinese women, confirmed previous findings from multinational studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

: The PATRICIA and AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00779766 and NCT00122681).

A nationwide epidemiological survey of adolescent patients with diverse symptoms similar to those following human papillomavirus vaccination: background prevalence and incidence for considering vaccine safety in Japan

BACKGROUND

Since June 2013, Japan has suspended proactive recommendation of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination due to self-reported diverse symptoms, including pain and motor dysfunction, as possible serious adverse events following immunization. Although these symptoms may be seen in adolescents without HPV vaccination, their frequency taking into account disease severity has not been examined.

METHODS

A two-stage, descriptive, nationwide epidemiological survey was conducted in 2016 with a 6-month targeted period from July 1 to December 31, 2015 to estimate the prevalence and incidence of diverse symptoms among Japanese adolescents without HPV vaccination. Participants were 11,037 medical departments in hospitals selected nationwide by stratified random sampling. Eligible patients had to satisfy four criteria: (1) aged 12-18 years upon visiting hospital; (2) having at least one of four symptoms/disorders (pain or sensory dysfunction, motor dysfunction, autonomic dysfunction, or cognitive impairment); (3) symptoms/disorders persisting for at least three months; and (4) both criteria (2) and (3) influence attendance at school or work. We further extracted patients with diverse symptoms similar to those after HPV vaccination while considering opinions of doctors in charge.

RESULTS

Estimated 6-month period prevalence of diverse symptoms among girls aged 12-18 years without HPV vaccination was 20.2 per 100,000. Annual incidence was estimated to be 7.3 per 100,000.

CONCLUSION

Adolescent Japanese girls without HPV vaccination also visited hospitals with diverse symptoms similar to those following HPV vaccination. Our findings predicted the medical demands for diverse symptoms that are temporally associated with but not caused by vaccination of Japanese adolescents.

Long‐term persistence of immune response to the AS04‐adjuvanted HPV‐16/18 vaccine in Chinese girls aged 9‐17 years: Results from an 8‐9‐year follow‐up phase III open‐label study

Aim

In 9‐17‐year‐old Chinese girls, the AS04‐adjuvanted HPV‐16/18 vaccine (AS04‐HPV‐16/18) given as three‐dose schedule induced high antibody levels, which were noninferior 1 month after the third dose to those observed in 18‐25‐year‐old Chinese women in a large efficacy study. We assessed the persistence of antibodies 8‐9 years after vaccination in the same subjects.

Methods

This follow‐up phase III, open‐label study (NCT03355820) included subjects who had received three doses of AS04‐HPV‐16/18 in the initial trial (NCT00996125). Serum antibody concentrations were assessed by ELISA and compared to antibody persistence observed in 18‐25‐year‐old Chinese women 6 years after first vaccination in the efficacy study (NCT00779766).

Results

Out of the 227 enrolled subjects, 223 were included in the per‐protocol immunogenicity analysis. Mean interval from first AS04‐HPV‐16/18 dose to blood sampling was 101.4 months (8.5 years). For antibodies against HPV‐16 and ‐18, 8.5 years after first vaccine dose all subjects remained seropositive and antibody. Geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) were 1236.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1121.8; 1362.4) and 535.6 (95% CI: 478.6; 599.4) ELISA Units/mL, respectively. These seropositivity rates and antibody GMCs were higher than those observed 6 years after first vaccination of 18‐25‐year‐old women.

Conclusion

Sustained anti‐HPV‐16 and ‐18 immune responses were observed 8‐9 years after AS04‐HPV‐16/18 vaccination of 9‐17 year‐old Chinese girls that were higher than the ones observed 6 years after first vaccination in Chinese adult women in whom AS04‐HPV‐16/18 efficacy against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade ≥2 was demonstrated.

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.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT COMMENTARY

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

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety of human papillomavirus vaccines in healthy young women: a meta-analysis of 24 controlled studies

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines have been shown to be effective for the eradication of HPV and prevention of cervical cancer. However, the number of women who receive HPV vaccinations has decreased over the last several years in Japan, due to concerns about adverse reactions associated with the vaccines. We evaluated the safety of three types of HPV vaccines separately in young women and the difference in the risk of adverse reactions between HPV and other vaccines by conducting a meta-analysis.

METHODS

Primary literature was retrieved from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Japana Centra Revuo Medicina. Prospective controlled studies with participants consisting exclusively of healthy women who received bivalent, quadrivalent, or 9-valent HPV (2vHPV, 4vHPV or 9vHPV) vaccines were included. Primary safety outcome was the incidence of solicited local and systemic symptoms, and unsolicited symptoms. When two or more studies were found for the same analysis, a meta-analysis was applied.

RESULTS

A total of 24 controlled studies from 22 articles were included in our study. Of the 24 studies, 16 were placebo-controlled and eight were active-controlled (different HPV vaccine or hepatitis vaccine). Average ages of the participants ranged from 12 to 37 years. A significantly higher incidence of solicited local symptoms was observed following injection of HPV vaccines (2vHPV and 4vHPV) compared to placebo, but there was no difference between HPV vaccines [risk ratio (RR) for 2vHPV: 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09 to 1.43, RR for 4vHPV: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.20]. The incidence of solicited systemic symptoms was not different between HPV vaccines and placebo (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.09). The incidence of unsolicited symptoms was significantly higher for 2vHPV vaccine compared to placebo (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.63), but was not significantly different between 2vHPV and hepatitis B vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

HPV vaccines had significantly higher risk of any injection site symptom compared to placebo or other vaccines (hepatitis A and B vaccines), and the incidence of solicited local symptoms was no difference between 2vHPV vaccination and 4vHPV vaccination. However, the most adverse reactions were transient.

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.