Estimating human papillomavirus vaccine efficacy from a single-arm trial: proof-of-principle in the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends a 1- or 2-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination schedule for females aged 9 to 20 years. Studies confirming the efficacy of a single dose and vaccine modifications are needed, but randomized controlled trials are costly and face logistical and ethical challenges. We propose a resource-efficient single-arm trial design that uses untargeted and unaffected HPV types as controls. METHODS: We estimated HPV vaccine efficacy (VE) from a single arm by comparing 2 ratios: the ratio of the rate of persistent incident infection with vaccine-targeted HPV 16 and 18 (HPV 16/18) and cross-protected types HPV 31, 33, and 45 (HPV 31/33/45) to vaccine-unaffected types HPV 35, 39, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 66 (HPV 35/39/51/52/56/58/59/66) vs the ratio of prevalence of these types at the time of trial enrollment. We compare VE estimates using only data from the bivalent HPV 16/18 vaccine arm of the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial with published VE estimates that used both the vaccine and control arms. RESULTS: Our single-arm approach among 3727 women yielded VE estimates against persistent HPV 16/18 infections similar to published 2-arm estimates from the trial (according-to-protocol cohort: 91.0% , 95% CI = 82.9% to 95.3% [single-arm] vs 90.9% , 95% CI = 82.0% to 95.9% [2-arm]; intention-to-treat cohort: 41.7%, 95% CI = 32.4% to 49.8% [single-arm] vs 49.0% , 95% CI = 38.1% to 58.1% [2-arm]). VE estimates were also similar in analytic subgroups (number of doses received; baseline HPV serology status). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that a single-arm design yields valid VE estimates with similar precision to a randomized controlled trial. Single-arm studies can reduce the sample size and costs of future HPV vaccine trials while avoiding concerns related to unvaccinated control groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00128661.

A modeling analysis to compare eligibility strategies for lung cancer screening in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Country-specific evidence is needed to guide decisions regarding whether and how to implement lung cancer screening in different settings. For this study, we estimated the potential numbers of individuals screened and lung cancer deaths prevented in Brazil after applying different strategies to define screening eligibility. METHODS: We applied the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT) to survey data on current and former smokers (ever-smokers) in 15 Brazilian state capital cities that comprise 18% of the Brazilian population. We evaluated three strategies to define eligibility for screening: (1) pack-years and cessation time (≥30 pack-years and <15 years since cessation); (2) the LCDRAT risk model with a fixed risk threshold; and (3) LCDRAT with age-specific risk thresholds. FINDINGS: Among 2.3 million Brazilian ever-smokers aged 55-79 years, 21,459 (95%CI 20,532-22,387) lung cancer deaths were predicted over 5 years without screening. Applying the fixed risk-based eligibility definition would prevent more lung cancer deaths than the pack-years definition [2,939 (95%CI 2751-3127) vs. 2,500 (95%CI 2318-2681) lung cancer deaths], and with higher screening efficiency [NNS=177 (95%CI 170-183) vs. 205 (95%CI 194-216)], but would tend to screen older individuals [mean age 67.8 (95%CI 67.5-68.2) vs. 63.4 (95%CI 63.0-63.9) years]. Applying age-specific risk thresholds would allow younger ever-smokers to be screened, although these individuals would be at lower risk. The age-specific thresholds strategy would avert three-fifths (60.1%) of preventable lung cancer deaths [N = 2629 (95%CI 2448-2810)] by screening 21.9% of ever-smokers. INTERPRETATION: The definition of eligibility impacts the efficiency of lung cancer screening and the mean age of the eligible population. As implementation of lung screening proceeds in different countries, our analytical framework can be used to guide similar analyses in other contexts. Due to limitations of our models, more research would be needed.