Association of naturally acquired type-specific HPV antibodies and subsequent HPV re-detection: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the role of naturally acquired (i.e., infection-induced) human papillomavirus (HPV) antibodies against reinfection is important given the high incidence of this sexually transmitted infection. However, the protective effect of naturally acquired antibodies in terms of the level of protection, duration, and differential effect by sex remains incompletely understood. We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to (1) strengthen the evidence on the association between HPV antibodies acquired through past infection and subsequent type-specific HPV detection, (2) investigate the potential influence of type-specific HPV antibody levels, and (3) assess differential effects by HIV status. METHODS: We searched Embase and Medline databases to identify studies which prospectively assessed the risk of type-specific HPV detection by baseline homologous HPV serostatus among unvaccinated individuals. Random-effect models were used to pool the measures of association of naturally acquired HPV antibodies against subsequent incident detection and persistent HPV positivity. Sources of heterogeneity for each type were assessed through subgroup analyses stratified by sex, anatomical site of infection, male sexual orientation, age group, and length of follow-up period. Evidence of a dose-response relationship of the association between levels of baseline HPV antibodies and type-specific HPV detection was assessed. Finally, we pooled estimates from publications reporting associations between HPV serostatus and type-specific HPV detection by baseline HIV status. RESULTS: We identified 26 publications (16 independent studies, with 62,363 participants) reporting associations between baseline HPV serostatus and incident HPV detection, mainly for HPV-16 and HPV-18, the most detected HPV type. We found evidence of protective effects of baseline HPV seropositivity and subsequent detection of HPV DNA (0.70, 95% CI 0.61-0.80, NE = 11) and persistent HPV positivity (0.65, 95% CI 0.42-1.01, NE = 5) mainly for HPV-16 among females, but not among males, nor for HPV-18. Estimates from 8 studies suggested a negative dose-response relationship between HPV antibody level and subsequent detection among females. Finally, we did not observe any differential effect by baseline HIV status due to the limited number of studies available. CONCLUSION: We did not find evidence that naturally acquired HPV antibodies protect against subsequent HPV positivity in males and provide only modest protection among females for HPV-16. One potential limitation to the interpretation of these findings is potential misclassification biases due to different causes.

Potential population-level effectiveness of one-dose HPV vaccination in low-income and middle-income countries: a mathematical modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: Given the accumulating evidence that one-dose vaccination could provide high and sustained protection against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and related diseases, we examined the population-level effectiveness and efficiency of one-dose HPV vaccination of girls compared with two-dose vaccination, using mathematical modelling. METHODS: In this mathematical modelling study, we used HPV-ADVISE LMIC, an individual-based transmission-dynamic model independently calibrated to four epidemiologically diverse low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs; India, Nigeria, Uganda, and Viet Nam). We parameterised and calibrated the model using sexual behaviour and epidemiological data identified from international population-based datasets and the literature. All base-case vaccination scenarios start in 2023 with the nonavalent vaccine and assumed 80% vaccination coverage with one or two doses. We assumed that two doses of vaccine provide 100% efficacy against vaccine-type infections and a lifelong duration of protection. We examined a non-inferior vaccination scenario for one dose compared with two doses, pessimistic scenarios of lower one-dose vaccine efficacy (85%) or a shorter duration of protection (ie, 20 or 30 years), and the effectiveness of a mitigation scenario in which schedules would switch from one dose to two doses. We also did sensitivity analyses by varying vaccination coverage. We used three outcomes: the relative reduction in cervical cancer incidence, the number of cervical cancers averted, and the number of vaccine doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer. FINDINGS: Assuming non-inferior vaccine characteristics for one dose compared with two doses, the model projections show that two-dose or one-dose routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years (with a multi-age cohort vaccination of girls aged 10-14 years) would avert 12·0 million (80% UI 9·5-14·5) cervical cancers in India, 4·7 million (3·4-5·8) in Nigeria, 2·3 million (1·9-2·6) in Uganda, and 0·4 million (0·2-0·5) in Viet Nam over 100 years. Under pessimistic assumptions of lower one-dose efficacy (85%) or a shorter duration of protection (ie, 30 years), one-dose routine vaccination would avert 69% (61-80) to 94% (92-96) of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose routine vaccination. However, when assuming a duration of protection of 20 years, one-dose routine vaccination would avert substantially fewer cervical cancers (ie, 35% [26-44] to 69% [65-71] of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose routine vaccination). A switch from one-dose to two-dose routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years, with a one-dose catch-up of girls aged 10-14 years, 5 years after the start of the vaccination programme, could mitigate potential losses in cervical cancer prevention from a short one-dose duration of protection (averting 92% [83-98] to 99% [97-100]) of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose routine vaccination). One-dose routine vaccination would result in fewer doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer than two-dose routine vaccination, even if the duration of protection is as low as 20 years. Finally, for countries with two-dose routine vaccination, adding one-dose multi-age cohort vaccination in the first year would provide similar benefits as a two-dose multi-age cohort vaccination, and would be more efficient even under the pessimistic assumptions of lower one-dose vaccine efficacy or duration of protection. INTERPRETATION: One-dose routine vaccination could avert most of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose vaccination while being more efficient, provided the duration of one-dose protection is greater than 20-30 years (depending on the LMIC). The doses saved by introducing one-dose routine vaccination could offer the opportunity to vaccinate girls before they age out of the vaccination window of 9-14 years and, potentially, to vaccinate boys or older age groups. FUNDING: Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Digital Research Alliance of Canada, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Global impact and cost-effectiveness of one-dose versus two-dose human papillomavirus vaccination schedules: a comparative modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: To eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, the World Health Organization had recommended routine vaccination of adolescent girls with two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine before sexual initiation. However, many countries have yet to implement HPV vaccination because of financial or logistical barriers to delivering two doses outside the infant immunisation programme. METHODS: Using three independent HPV transmission models, we estimated the long-term health benefits and cost-effectiveness of one-dose versus two-dose HPV vaccination, in 188 countries, under scenarios in which one dose of the vaccine gives either a shorter duration of full protection (20 or 30 years) or lifelong protection but lower vaccine efficacy (e.g. 80%) compared to two doses. We simulated routine vaccination with the 9-valent HPV vaccine in 10-year-old girls at 80% coverage for the years 2021-2120, with a 1-year catch-up campaign up to age 14 at 80% coverage in the first year of the programme. RESULTS: Over the years 2021-2120, one-dose vaccination at 80% coverage was projected to avert 115.2 million (range of medians: 85.1-130.4) and 146.8 million (114.1-161.6) cervical cancers assuming one dose of the vaccine confers 20 and 30 years of protection, respectively. Should one dose of the vaccine provide lifelong protection at 80% vaccine efficacy, 147.8 million (140.6-169.7) cervical cancer cases could be prevented. If protection wanes after 20 years, 65 to 889 additional girls would need to be vaccinated with the second dose to prevent one cervical cancer, depending on the epidemiological profiles of the country. Across all income groups, the threshold cost for the second dose was low: from 1.59 (0.14-3.82) USD in low-income countries to 44.83 (3.75-85.64) USD in high-income countries, assuming one dose confers 30-year protection. CONCLUSIONS: Results were consistent across the three independent models and suggest that one-dose vaccination has similar health benefits to a two-dose programme while simplifying vaccine delivery, reducing costs, and alleviating vaccine supply constraints. The second dose may become cost-effective if there is a shorter duration of protection from one dose, cheaper vaccine and vaccination delivery strategies, and high burden of cervical cancer.

Potential benefit of extended dose schedules of human papillomavirus vaccination in the context of scarce resources and COVID-19 disruptions in low-income and middle-income countries: a mathematical modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts recommended that an extended interval of 3-5 years between the two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine could be considered to alleviate vaccine supply shortages. However, three concerns have limited the introduction of extended schedules: girls could be infected between the two doses, the vaccination coverage for the second dose could be lower at ages 13-14 years than at ages 9-10 years, and identifying girls vaccinated with a first dose to give them the second dose could be difficult. Using mathematical modelling, we examined the potential effect of these concerns on the population-level impact and efficiency of extended dose HPV vaccination schedules. METHODS: We used HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based, transmission-dynamic model of multitype HPV infection and disease, calibrated to country-specific data for four low-income and middle-income countries (India, Viet Nam, Uganda, and Nigeria). For the extended dose scenarios, we varied the vaccination coverage of the second dose among girls previously vaccinated, the one-dose vaccine efficacy, and the one-dose vaccine duration of protection. We also examined a strategy in which girls aged 14 years were vaccinated irrespective of their previous vaccination status. We used a scenario of girls-only two-dose vaccination at age 9 years (vaccine=9 valent, vaccine-type efficacy=100%, duration of protection=lifetime, and coverage=80%) as our comparator. We estimated two outcomes: the relative reduction in the age-standardised cervical cancer incidence (population-level impact) and the number of cervical cancers averted per 100 000 doses (efficiency). FINDINGS: Our model projected substantial reductions in cervical cancer incidence over 100 years with the two-dose schedule (79-86% depending on the country), compared with no vaccination. Projections for the 5-year extended schedule, in which the second dose is given only to girls previously vaccinated at age 9 years, were similar to the current two-dose schedule, unless vaccination coverage of the second dose is very low (reductions in cervical cancer incidence of 71-78% assuming 30% coverage at age 14 years among girls vaccinated at age 9 years). However, when the dose at age 14 years is given to girls irrespective of vaccination status and assuming high vaccination coverage, the model projected a substantially greater reduction in cervical cancer incidence compared with the current two-dose schedule (reductions in cervical cancer incidence of 86-93% assuming 70% coverage at age 14 years, irrespective of vaccination status). Efficiency of the extended schedule was greater than the two-dose schedule, even with a drop in vaccination coverage. INTERPRETATION: The three concerns are unlikely to have a substantial effect on the population-level impact of extended dose schedules. Hence, extended dose schedules will likely provide similar cervical cancer reductions as two-dose schedules, while reducing the number of doses required in the short-term, providing a more efficient use of scarce resources, and offering a 5-year time window to reassess the necessity of the second dose. FUNDING: WHO, Canadian Institute of Health Research Foundation, Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Digital Research Alliance of Canada, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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).

Human papillomavirus vaccine effectiveness by number of doses: Updated systematic review of data from national immunization programs.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were first licensed as a three-dose series. Two doses are now widely recommended in some age groups; there are data suggesting high efficacy with one dose. We updated a systematic literature review of HPV vaccine effectiveness by number of doses in observational studies. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase databases from January 1, 2007, through September 29, 2021. Data were extracted and summarized in a narrative synthesis. We also conducted quality assessments for bias due to selection, information, and confounding. RESULTS: Overall, 35 studies were included; all except one were conducted within the context of a recommended three-dose schedule. Evaluations were in countries that used bivalent HPV vaccine (seven), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (27) or both (one). Nine evaluated effectiveness against HPV infection, ten anogenital warts, and 16 cervical abnormalities. All studies were judged to have moderate or serious risk of bias. The biases rated as serious would likely result in lower effectiveness with fewer doses. Investigators attempted to control for or stratify by potentially important variables, such as age at vaccination. Eight studies evaluated impact of buffer periods (lag time) for case counting and 10 evaluated different intervals between doses for two-dose vaccine recipients. Studies that stratified by vaccination age found higher effectiveness with younger age at vaccination, although differences were not all formally tested. Most studies found highest estimates of effectiveness with three doses; significant effectiveness was found among 28/29 studies that evaluated three doses, 19/29 that evaluated two doses, and 18/30 that evaluated one dose. Some studies that adjusted or stratified analyses by age at vaccination found similar effectiveness with three, two and one doses. CONCLUSION: Observational studies of HPV vaccine effectiveness have many biases. Studies examining persons vaccinated prior to sexual activity and using methods to reduce sources of bias are needed for valid effectiveness estimates.

Optimal human papillomavirus vaccination strategies to prevent cervical cancer in low-income and middle-income countries in the context of limited resources: a mathematical modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: Introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination has been slow in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of resource constraints and worldwide shortage of vaccine supplies. To help inform WHO recommendations, we modelled various HPV vaccination strategies to examine the optimal use of limited vaccine supplies and best allocation of scarce resources in LMICs in the context of the WHO global call to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. METHODS: In this mathematical modelling analysis, we developed HPV-ADVISE LMIC, a transmission-dynamic model of HPV infection and diseases calibrated to four LMICs: India, Vietnam, Uganda, and Nigeria. For different vaccination strategies that encompassed use of a nine-valent vaccine (or a two-valent or four-valent vaccine assuming high cross-protection), we estimated three outcomes: reduction in the age-standardised rate of cervical cancer, number of doses needed to prevent one case of cervical cancer (NNV; as a measure of efficiency), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; in 2017 international $ per disability-adjusted life-year [DALY] averted). We examined different vaccination strategies by varying the ages of routine HPV vaccination and number of age cohorts vaccinated, the population targeted, and the number of doses used. In our base case, we assumed 100% lifetime protection against HPV-16, HPV-18, HPV-31, HPV-33, HPV-45, HPV-52, and HPV-58; vaccination coverage of 80%; and a time horizon of 100 years. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we used a 3% discount rate. Elimination of cervical cancer was defined as an age-standardised incidence of less than four cases per 100 000 woman-years. FINDINGS: We predicted that HPV vaccination could lead to cervical cancer elimination in Vietnam, India, and Nigeria, but not in Uganda. Compared with no vaccination, strategies that involved vaccinating girls aged 9-14 years with two doses were predicted to be the most efficient and cost-effective in all four LMICs. NNV ranged from 78 to 381 and ICER ranged from $28 per DALY averted to $1406 per DALY averted depending on the country. The most efficient and cost-effective strategies were routine vaccination of girls aged 14 years, with or without a later switch to routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years, and routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years with a 5-year extended interval between doses and a catch-up programme at age 14 years. Vaccinating boys (aged 9-14 years) or women aged 18 years or older resulted in substantially higher NNVs and ICERs. INTERPRETATION: We identified two strategies that could maximise efforts to prevent cervical cancer in LMICs given constraints on vaccine supplies and costs and that would allow a maximum of LMICs to introduce HPV vaccination. FUNDING: World Health Organization, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Compute Canada, PATH, and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. TRANSLATIONS: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Impact of HPV vaccination and cervical screening on cervical cancer elimination: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Director-General has issued a call for action to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To help inform global efforts, we modelled potential human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cervical screening scenarios in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) to examine the feasibility and timing of elimination at different thresholds, and to estimate the number of cervical cancer cases averted on the path to elimination. METHODS: The WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC), which consists of three independent transmission-dynamic models identified by WHO according to predefined criteria, projected reductions in cervical cancer incidence over time in 78 LMICs for three standardised base-case scenarios: girls-only vaccination; girls-only vaccination and once-lifetime screening; and girls-only vaccination and twice-lifetime screening. Girls were vaccinated at age 9 years (with a catch-up to age 14 years), assuming 90% coverage and 100% lifetime protection against HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Cervical screening involved HPV testing once or twice per lifetime at ages 35 years and 45 years, with uptake increasing from 45% (2023) to 90% (2045 onwards). The elimination thresholds examined were an average age-standardised cervical cancer incidence of four or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years and ten or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, and an 85% or greater reduction in incidence. Sensitivity analyses were done, varying vaccination and screening strategies and assumptions. We summarised results using the median (range) of model predictions. FINDINGS: Girls-only HPV vaccination was predicted to reduce the median age-standardised cervical cancer incidence in LMICs from 19·8 (range 19·4-19·8) to 2·1 (2·0-2·6) cases per 100 000 women-years over the next century (89·4% [86·2-90·1] reduction), and to avert 61·0 million (60·5-63·0) cases during this period. Adding twice-lifetime screening reduced the incidence to 0·7 (0·6-1·6) cases per 100 000 women-years (96·7% [91·3-96·7] reduction) and averted an extra 12·1 million (9·5-13·7) cases. Girls-only vaccination was predicted to result in elimination in 60% (58-65) of LMICs based on the threshold of four or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, in 99% (89-100) of LMICs based on the threshold of ten or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years, and in 87% (37-99) of LMICs based on the 85% or greater reduction threshold. When adding twice-lifetime screening, 100% (71-100) of LMICs reached elimination for all three thresholds. In regions in which all countries can achieve cervical cancer elimination with girls-only vaccination, elimination could occur between 2059 and 2102, depending on the threshold and region. Introducing twice-lifetime screening accelerated elimination by 11-31 years. Long-term vaccine protection was required for elimination. INTERPRETATION: Predictions were consistent across our three models and suggest that high HPV vaccination coverage of girls can lead to cervical cancer elimination in most LMICs by the end of the century. Screening with high uptake will expedite reductions and will be necessary to eliminate cervical cancer in countries with the highest burden. FUNDING: WHO, UNDP, UN Population Fund, UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, Compute Canada, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia Centre for Research Excellence in Cervical Cancer Control.

Mortality impact of achieving WHO cervical cancer elimination targets: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: WHO is developing a global strategy towards eliminating cervical cancer as a public health problem, which proposes an elimination threshold of four cases per 100 000 women and includes 2030 triple-intervention coverage targets for scale-up of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to 90%, twice-lifetime cervical screening to 70%, and treatment of pre-invasive lesions and invasive cancer to 90%. We assessed the impact of achieving the 90-70-90 triple-intervention targets on cervical cancer mortality and deaths averted over the next century. We also assessed the potential for the elimination initiative to support target 3.4 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-a one-third reduction in premature mortality from non-communicable diseases by 2030. METHODS: The WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC) involves three independent, dynamic models of HPV infection, cervical carcinogenesis, screening, and precancer and invasive cancer treatment. Reductions in age-standardised rates of cervical cancer mortality in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) were estimated for three core scenarios: girls-only vaccination at age 9 years with catch-up for girls aged 10-14 years; girls-only vaccination plus once-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up; and girls-only vaccination plus twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up. Vaccination was assumed to provide 100% lifetime protection against infections with HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, and to scale up to 90% coverage in 2020. Cervical screening involved HPV testing at age 35 years, or at ages 35 years and 45 years, with scale-up to 45% coverage by 2023, 70% by 2030, and 90% by 2045, and we assumed that 50% of women with invasive cervical cancer would receive appropriate surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy by 2023, which would increase to 90% by 2030. We summarised results using the median (range) of model predictions. FINDINGS: In 2020, the estimated cervical cancer mortality rate across all 78 LMICs was 13·2 (range 12·9-14·1) per 100 000 women. Compared to the status quo, by 2030, vaccination alone would have minimal impact on cervical cancer mortality, leading to a 0·1% (0·1-0·5) reduction, but additionally scaling up twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 34·2% (23·3-37·8), averting 300 000 (300 000-400 000) deaths by 2030 (with similar results for once-lifetime screening). By 2070, scaling up vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 61·7% (61·4-66·1), averting 4·8 million (4·1-4·8) deaths. By 2070, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 88·9% (84·0-89·3), averting 13·3 million (13·1-13·6) deaths (with once-lifetime screening), or by 92·3% (88·4-93·0), averting 14·6 million (14·1-14·6) deaths (with twice-lifetime screening). By 2120, vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 89·5% (86·6-89·9), averting 45·8 million (44·7-46·4) deaths. By 2120, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 97·9% (95·0-98·0), averting 60·8 million (60·2-61·2) deaths (with once-lifetime screening), or by 98·6% (96·5-98·6), averting 62·6 million (62·1-62·8) deaths (with twice-lifetime screening). With the WHO triple-intervention strategy, over the next 10 years, about half (48% [45-55]) of deaths averted would be in sub-Saharan Africa and almost a third (32% [29-34]) would be in South Asia; over the next 100 years, almost 90% of deaths averted would be in these regions. For premature deaths (age 30-69 years), the WHO triple-intervention strategy would result in rate reductions of 33·9% (24·4-37·9) by 2030, 96·2% (94·3-96·8) by 2070, and 98·6% (96·9-98·8) by 2120. INTERPRETATION: These findings emphasise the importance of acting immediately on three fronts to scale up vaccination, screening, and treatment for pre-invasive and invasive cervical cancer. In the next 10 years, a one-third reduction in the rate of premature mortality from cervical cancer in LMICs is possible, contributing to the realisation of the 2030 UN SDGs. Over the next century, successful implementation of the WHO elimination strategy would reduce cervical cancer mortality by almost 99% and save more than 62 million women's lives. FUNDING: WHO, UNDP, UN Population Fund, UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Germany Federal Ministry of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Centre for Research Excellence in Cervical Cancer Control, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Compute Canada, and Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Through Age 45 Years in the United States.

Background: In the United States, the routine age for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is 11 to 12 years, with catch-up vaccination through age 26 years for women and 21 years for men. U.S. vaccination policy on use of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in adult women and men is being reviewed. Objective: To evaluate the added population-level effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of extending the current U.S. HPV vaccination program to women aged 27 to 45 years and men aged 22 to 45 years. Design: The analysis used HPV-ADVISE (Agent-based Dynamic model for VaccInation and Screening Evaluation), an individual-based transmission dynamic model of HPV infection and associated diseases, calibrated to age-specific U.S. data. Data Sources: Published data. Target Population: Women aged 27 to 45 years and men aged 22 to 45 years in the United States. Time Horizon: 100 years. Perspective: Health care sector. Intervention: 9-valent HPV vaccination. Outcome Measures: HPV-associated outcomes prevented and cost-effectiveness ratios. Results of Base-Case Analysis: The model predicts that the current U.S. HPV vaccination program will reduce the number of diagnoses of anogenital warts and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or 3 and cases of cervical cancer and noncervical HPV-associated cancer by 82%, 80%, 59%, and 39%, respectively, over 100 years and is cost saving (vs. no vaccination). In contrast, extending vaccination to women and men aged 45 years is predicted to reduce these outcomes by an additional 0.4, 0.4, 0.2, and 0.2 percentage points, respectively. Vaccinating women and men up to age 30, 40, and 45 years is predicted to cost $830 000, $1 843 000, and $1 471 000, respectively, per quality-adjusted life-year gained (vs. current vaccination). Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Results were most sensitive to assumptions about natural immunity and progression rates after infection, historical vaccination coverage, and vaccine efficacy. Limitation: Uncertainty about the proportion of HPV-associated disease due to infections after age 26 years and about the level of herd effects from the current HPV vaccination program. Conclusion: The current HPV vaccination program is predicted to be cost saving. Extending vaccination to older ages is predicted to produce small additional health benefits and result in substantially higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than the current recommendation. Primary Funding Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Wage losses among spouses of women with nonmetastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the wage losses incurred by spouses of women with nonmetastatic breast cancer in the 6 months after the diagnosis. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of spouses of women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer who were recruited in 8 hospitals in the province of Quebec (Canada) was performed. Information for estimating wage losses was collected by telephone interviews conducted 1 and 6 months after the diagnosis. Log-binomial regressions were used to identify personal, medical, and employment characteristics associated with experiencing wage losses, and generalized linear models were used to identify characteristics associated with the proportion of usual wages lost. RESULTS: Overall, 829 women (86% participation) and 406 spouses (75% participation) consented to participate. Among the 279 employed spouses, 78.5% experienced work absences because of breast cancer. Spouses were compensated for 66.3% of their salary on average during their absence. The median wage loss was $0 (mean, $1820) (2003 Canadian dollars). Spouses were more likely to experience losses if they were self-employed or lived 50 km or farther from the hospital. Among spouses who experienced wage losses, those who were self-employed or whose partners had invasive breast cancer lost a higher proportion of wages. CONCLUSIONS: Although spouses took some time off work, for many, the resulting wage losses were modest because of compensation received. Still, the types of compensation used may hide other forms of burden for families facing breast cancer.

Efficacy and immunogenicity of a single dose of human papillomavirus vaccine compared to no vaccination or standard three and two-dose vaccination regimens: A systematic review of evidence from clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the efficacy and immunogenicity of single-dose HPV vaccination compared to no vaccination or multi-dose schedules among vaccine trial participants. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Global Health Database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for publications and conference abstracts (dated January 1999-August 2018) using MeSH and non-MeSH terms for human papillomavirus AND vaccines AND (immunogenicity OR efficacy/effectiveness) AND dosage. Search results were screened against pre-specified eligibility criteria. Data were extracted from included articles, and a narrative synthesis conducted on efficacy against HPV16/18 infection and humoral immunogenicity. RESULTS: Seven of 6,523 unique records identified were included in the review. Six were nested observational studies of participants randomised to receive two or three doses in three large HPV vaccine trials, in which some participants did not complete their allocated schedules. One small pilot study prospectively allocated participants to receive one or no vaccine dose. Frequency of HPV16/18 infection was low (e.g. <1% for 12-month-persistent infection) in all vaccinated participants up to seven years post vaccination and did not significantly differ by number of doses (p > 0.05 in all cases). Frequency of infection was significantly lower in one-dose recipients compared to unvaccinated controls (p < 0.01 for all infection endpoints in each study). HPV16/18 seropositivity rates were high in all HPV vaccine recipients (100% in three of four studies reporting this endpoint), though antibody levels were lower with one compared to two or three doses. CONCLUSIONS: This review supports the premise that one HPV vaccine dose may be as effective in preventing HPV infection as multi-dose schedules in healthy young women. However, it also highlights the paucity of available evidence from purpose-designed, prospectively-randomised trials. Results from ongoing clinical trials assessing the efficacy and immunogenicity of single-dose HPV vaccination compared to currently-recommended schedules are awaited.

Population-level impact and herd effects following the introduction of human papillomavirus vaccination programmes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: More than 10 years have elapsed since human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination was implemented. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the population-level impact of vaccinating girls and women against human papillomavirus on HPV infections, anogenital wart diagnoses, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) to summarise the most recent evidence about the effectiveness of HPV vaccines in real-world settings and to quantify the impact of multiple age-cohort vaccination. METHODS: In this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, we used the same search strategy as in our previous paper. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies published between Feb 1, 2014, and Oct 11, 2018. Studies were eligible if they compared the frequency (prevalence or incidence) of at least one HPV-related endpoint (genital HPV infections, anogenital wart diagnoses, or histologically confirmed CIN2+) between pre-vaccination and post-vaccination periods among the general population and if they used the same population sources and recruitment methods before and after vaccination. Our primary assessment was the relative risk (RR) comparing the frequency (prevalence or incidence) of HPV-related endpoints between the pre-vaccination and post-vaccination periods. We stratified all analyses by sex, age, and years since introduction of HPV vaccination. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled relative risks. FINDINGS: We identified 1702 potentially eligible articles for this systematic review and meta-analysis, and included 65 articles in 14 high-income countries: 23 for HPV infection, 29 for anogenital warts, and 13 for CIN2+. After 5-8 years of vaccination, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 decreased significantly by 83% (RR 0·17, 95% CI 0·11-0·25) among girls aged 13-19 years, and decreased significantly by 66% (RR 0·34, 95% CI 0·23-0·49) among women aged 20-24 years. The prevalence of HPV 31, 33, and 45 decreased significantly by 54% (RR 0·46, 95% CI 0·33-0·66) among girls aged 13-19 years. Anogenital wart diagnoses decreased significantly by 67% (RR 0·33, 95% CI 0·24-0·46) among girls aged 15-19 years, decreased significantly by 54% (RR 0·46, 95% CI 0.36-0.60) among women aged 20-24 years, and decreased significantly by 31% (RR 0·69, 95% CI 0·53-0·89) among women aged 25-29 years. Among boys aged 15-19 years anogenital wart diagnoses decreased significantly by 48% (RR 0·52, 95% CI 0·37-0·75) and among men aged 20-24 years they decreased significantly by 32% (RR 0·68, 95% CI 0·47-0·98). After 5-9 years of vaccination, CIN2+ decreased significantly by 51% (RR 0·49, 95% CI 0·42-0·58) among screened girls aged 15-19 years and decreased significantly by 31% (RR 0·69, 95% CI 0·57-0·84) among women aged 20-24 years. INTERPRETATION: This updated systematic review and meta-analysis includes data from 60 million individuals and up to 8 years of post-vaccination follow-up. Our results show compelling evidence of the substantial impact of HPV vaccination programmes on HPV infections and CIN2+ among girls and women, and on anogenital warts diagnoses among girls, women, boys, and men. Additionally, programmes with multi-cohort vaccination and high vaccination coverage had a greater direct impact and herd effects. FUNDING: WHO, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé.

Model Comparisons of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Vaccination: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVES: To describe all published articles that have conducted comparisons of model-based effectiveness and cost-effectiveness results in the field of vaccination. Specific objectives were to 1) describe the methodologies used and 2) identify the strengths and limitations of the studies. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase databases for studies that compared predictions of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaccination of two or more mathematical models. We categorized studies into two groups on the basis of their data source for comparison (previously published results or new simulation results) and performed a qualitative synthesis of study conclusions. RESULTS: We identified 115 eligible articles (only 5% generated new simulations from the reviewed models) examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaccination against 14 pathogens (69% of studies examined human papillomavirus, influenza, and/or pneumococcal vaccines). The goal of most of studies was to summarize evidence for vaccination policy decisions, and cost-effectiveness was the most frequent outcome examined. Only 33%, 25%, and 3% of studies followed a systematic approach to identify eligible studies, assessed the quality of studies, and performed a quantitative synthesis of results, respectively. A greater proportion of model comparisons using published studies followed a systematic approach to identify eligible studies and to assess their quality, whereas more studies using new simulations performed quantitative synthesis of results and identified drivers of model conclusions. Most comparative modeling studies concluded that vaccination was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Given the variability in methods used to conduct/report comparative modeling studies, guidelines are required to enhance their quality and transparency and to provide better tools for decision making.

Evidence of synergistic relationships between HIV and Human Papillomavirus (HPV): systematic reviews and meta-analyses of longitudinal studies of HPV acquisition and clearance by HIV status, and of HIV acquisition by HPV status.

INTRODUCTION: Observational studies suggest HIV and human papillomavirus (HPV) infections may have multiple interactions. We reviewed the strength of the evidence for the influence of HIV on HPV acquisition and clearance, and the influence of HPV on HIV acquisition. METHODS: We performed meta-analytic systematic reviews of longitudinal studies of HPV incidence and clearance rate by HIV status (review 1) and of HIV incidence by HPV status (review 2). We pooled relative risk (RR) estimates across studies using random-effect models. I2 statistics and subgroup analyses were used to quantify heterogeneity across estimates and explore the influence of participant and study characteristics including study quality. Publication bias was examined quantitatively with funnel plots and subgroup analysis, as well as qualitatively. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In review 1, 37 publications (25 independent studies) were included in the meta-analysis. HPV incidence (pooled RR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.88; heterosexual males: pooled RR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.62, 2.34; females: pooled RR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.26 to 2.11; men who have sex with men: pooled RR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.82) and high-risk HPV incidence (pooled RR = 2.20, 95% CI: 1.90 to 2.54) was approximately doubled among people living with HIV (PLHIV) whereas HPV clearance rate (pooled RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.67) was approximately halved. In review 2, 14 publications (11 independent studies) were included in the meta-analysis. HIV incidence was almost doubled (pooled RR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.65) in the presence of prevalent HPV infection. There was more evidence of publication bias in review 2, and somewhat greater risk of confounding in studies included in review 1. There was some evidence that adjustment for key confounders strengthened the associations for review 2. Misclassification bias by HIV/HPV exposure status could also have biased estimates toward the null. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence for synergistic HIV and HPV interactions of clinical and public health relevance. HPV vaccination may directly benefit PLHIV, and help control both HPV and HIV at the population level in high prevalence settings. Our estimates of association are useful for mathematical modelling. Although observational studies can never perfectly control for residual confounding, the evidence presented here lends further support for the presence of biological interactions between HIV and HPV that have a strong plausibility.

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

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were first licensed as a three-dose series; a two-dose series is now recommended in some age groups and there is interest in possible one-dose vaccination. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of HPV vaccine effectiveness by number of doses, including assessment of biases and impact of varying buffer periods (time between vaccination and outcome counting). RESULTS: Of 3787 articles identified, 26 full articles were assessed and 14 included in our review. All studies were conducted within the context of recommended three-dose schedules of bivalent (3) or quadrivalent HPV vaccine (11). Two evaluated effectiveness for prevention of HPV prevalence, six anogenital warts, and six abnormal cervical cytology or histology. Many studies found differences between three-, two- and one-dose vaccine recipients, indicating possible differences in HPV exposure prior to vaccination or in risk behavior. Adjusted or stratified analyses were conducted to control for potential confounding. All studies found significant vaccine effectiveness with three doses, 11 with two doses at various intervals, and six with one dose. Most studies showed a relationship (not always statistically significant) between effectiveness and number of doses, with greater decreases in HPV-related outcomes with three, followed by two and one dose(s). Few studies conducted formal comparisons of three vs fewer doses. Three of four studies that examined buffer periods found higher effectiveness and a smaller difference by number of doses with longer periods. CONCLUSION: Most post-licensure studies report highest effectiveness with three doses; some found no statistically significant difference between two and three doses. Additionally, almost half found some effectiveness with one dose. Several biases impact estimates, with most biasing two- and one-dose results away from showing effectiveness. Future effectiveness studies, examining persons vaccinated prior to sexual activity and using methods to reduce potential sources of bias, can help inform vaccination policy.

The Impact of Human Papillomavirus Catch-Up Vaccination in Australia: Implications for Introduction of Multiple Age Cohort Vaccination and Postvaccination Data Interpretation.

We used transmission-dynamic modeling to estimate the added effectiveness of vaccinating multiple cohorts of females (12-26 years) in Australia compared with the theoretical introduction of routine-only (12-13 years) vaccination. Our results suggest that vaccinating multiple cohorts produced markedly faster direct/herd effects, and it added benefits that last for 20-70 years. Furthermore, the number needed to vaccinate to prevent 1 anogential warts (AGW) case or cervical cancer (CC) was similar for routine + catch-up (AGW = 9.9, CC = 678) and routine-only vaccination (AGW = 9.9, CC = 677), thus providing similar levels of efficiency per person vaccinated.