Performance of an affordable urine self-sampling method for human papillomavirus detection in Mexican women.

INTRODUCTION: Urine self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening is a non-invasive method that offers several logistical advantages and high acceptability, reducing barriers related to low screening coverage. This study developed and evaluated the performance of a low-cost urine self-sampling method for HPV-testing and explored the acceptability and feasibility of potential implementation of this alternative in routine screening. METHODS: A series of sequential laboratory assays examined the impact of several pre-analytical conditions for obtaining DNA from urine and subsequent HPV detection. Initially, we assessed the effect of ethylaminediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) as a DNA preservative examining several variables including EDTA concentration, specimen storage temperature, time between urine collection and DNA extraction, and first-morning micturition versus convenience sample collection. We further evaluated the agreement of HPV-testing between urine and clinician-collected cervical samples among 95 women. Finally, we explored the costs of self-sampling supplies as well as the acceptability and feasibility of urine self-sampling among women and healthcare workers. RESULTS: Our results revealed higher DNA concentrations were obtained when using a 40mM EDTA solution, storing specimens at 25°C and extracting DNA within 72 hrs. of urine collection, regardless of using first-morning micturition or a convenience sampling. We observed good agreement (Kappa = 0.72) between urine and clinician-collected cervical samples for HPV detection. Furthermore, urine self-sampling was an affordable method (USD 1.10), well accepted among cervical cancer screening users, healthcare workers, and decision-makers. CONCLUSION: These results suggest urine self-sampling is feasible and appropriate alternative for HPV-testing in HPV-based screening programs in lower-resource contexts.

Burden of Mycoplasma genitalium and Bacterial Coinfections in a Population-Based Sample in New Mexico.

ABSTRACT: In this population-based US study, the overall prevalence of Mycoplasma genitalium was 1.95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62%-2.34%), declining from 6.12% (95% CI, 4.72%-7.92%) in women aged 21 to 24 years to 0.48% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.94%) in women aged 40 to 64 years. The prevalence of coinfections with Chlamydia trachomatis and Trichomonas vaginalis was low.

Efficacy of AS04-Adjuvanted Vaccine Against Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Types 16 and 18 in Clearing Incident HPV Infections: Pooled Analysis of Data From the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial and the PATRICIA Study.

Clinical trial data and real-world evidence suggest that the AS04-adjuvanted vaccine targeting human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 (AS04-HPV-16/18) vaccine provides nearly 90% protection against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher irrespective of type, among women vaccinated before sexual debut. This high efficacy is not fully explained by cross-protection. Although AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccination does not affect clearance of prevalent infections, it may accelerate clearance of newly acquired infections. We pooled data from 2 large-scale randomized controlled trials to evaluate efficacy of the AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine against clearance of nontargeted incident infections. Results of our analysis do not suggest an effect in expediting clearance of incident infections.

Adjunctive testing by cytology, p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology or HPV16/18 E6 oncoprotein for the management of HPV16/18 screen-positive women.

High-risk human papillomavirus type 16/18 (HPV16/18) genotyping is unable to accurately discriminate nonprogressive infections from those that will progress to cervical cancer. Our study aimed to assesses if additional testing either with liquid-based cytology (LBC) or the putative progression markers p16/Ki-67 and HPV16/18 E6 oncoprotein (E6) can improve the efficiency of HPV16/18 genotyping for triaging high-risk HPV (hrHPV)-positive women through better cancer risk stratification. Women attending colposcopy after positive HPV16/18 genotyping results within the Forwarding Research for Improved Detection and Access for Cervical Cancer Screening and Triage (FRIDA) hrHPV-based screening study in Tlaxcala, Mexico, underwent further testing with LBC, p16/Ki-67 dual-stained (DS) cytology and E6. We calculated measures of test performance for detecting histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) and grade 3 or higher (CIN3+). A number of 475 (64.3%) of 739 HPV16/18-positive women had complete results for all tests. Triage positivity rates were 14.1%, 18.5% and 24.4%, for LBC, E6 and DS, respectively. Compared with LBC, DS had higher sensitivity (24.4% vs 60.0%) although lower specificity (87.0% vs 79.3%) for CIN3+ (P < .001), whereas E6 had a sensitivity of 37.8% and a specificity of 83.5%. No invasive cancer was missed by DS or E6, but 75% were in normal cytology. DS test was associated with nearly 75% reduction of colposcopy referrals compared with the direct referral of all HPV16/18-positive women, giving the least number of colposcopies (n = 4.3) per CIN3+ detected. We show that adjunctive testing of HPV16/18-positive women with DS may greatly reduce unnecessary colposcopy referrals within HPV-based screening employing HPV16/18 genotyping while retaining acceptable sensitivity for CIN2+ and CIN3+.

Efficacy of the AS04-Adjuvanted HPV16/18 Vaccine: Pooled Analysis of the Costa Rica Vaccine and PATRICIA Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The AS04-adjuvanted HPV16/18 (AS04-HPV16/18) vaccine provides excellent protection against targeted human papillomavirus (HPV) types and a variable degree of cross-protection against others, including types 6/11/31/33/45. High efficacy against any cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or greater (CIN3+; >90%) suggests that lower levels of protection may exist for a wide range of oncogenic HPV types, which is difficult to quantify in individual trials. Pooling individual-level data from two randomized controlled trials, we aimed to evaluate AS04-HPV16/18 vaccine efficacy against incident HPV infections and cervical abnormalities . METHODS: Data were available from the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial (NCT00128661) and Papilloma Trial Against Cancer in Young Adults trial (NCT00122681), two large-scale, double-blind randomized controlled trials of the AS04-HPV16/18 vaccine. Primary analyses focused on disease-free women with no detectable cervicovaginal HPV at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 12 550 women were included in our primary analyses (HPV arm = 6271, control arm = 6279). Incidence of 6-month persistent oncogenic and nononcogenic infections, excluding known and accepted protected types 6/11/16/18/31/33/45 (focusing on 34/35/39/40/42/43/44/51/52/53/54/56/58/59/66/68/73/70/74), was statistically significantly lower in the HPV arm than in the control arm (efficacy = 9.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7% to 17.4%). Statistically significant efficacy (P < .05) was observed for individual oncogenic types 16/18/31/33/45/52 and nononcogenic types 6/11/53/74. Efficacy against cervical abnormalities (all types) increased with severity, ranging from 27.7% (95% CI = 21.7% to 33.3%) to 58.7% (95% CI = 34.1% to 74.7%) for cytologic outcomes (low-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia lesion or greater, and high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia lesion or greater, respectively) and 66.0% (95% CI = 54.4% to 74.9%) to 87.8% (95% CI = 71.1% to 95.7%) for histologic outcomes (CIN2+ and CIN3+, respectively). Comparing Costa Rica Vaccine Trial and Papilloma Trial Against Cancer in Young Adults results, there was no evidence of heterogeneity, except for type 51 (efficacy = -28.6% and 20.7%, respectively; two-sided P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The AS04-HPV16/18 vaccine provides some additional cross-protection beyond established protected types, which partially explains the high efficacy against CIN3+.

Comparison of HPV-16 and HPV-18 Genotyping and Cytological Testing as Triage Testing Within Human Papillomavirus-Based Screening in Mexico.

Importance: Triage tests enhance the efficiency cervical cancer screening based on human papillomavirus (HPV), but the best approach for maximizing programmatic effectiveness is still uncertain, particularly in a real-world scenario. Objective: To compare the clinical performance of 6 triage strategies based on liquid-based cytology (LBC) and HPV-16 and HPV-18 genotyping individually or in combination as sequential triage tests to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or higher among women with high-risk HPV. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study of routine cervical cancer screening was conducted at 100 primary health centers in Tlaxcala, Mexico. Women aged 30 to 64 years were recruited from August 1, 2013, to February 24, 2016, as part of the Forwarding Research for Improved Detection and Access for Cervical Cancer Screening and Triage study. Six triage scenarios for referral to colposcopy were examined: (1) LBC testing that found atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or worse, (2) positive results in HPV-16 genotyping, (3) positive results in HPV-18 genotyping, (4) positive results in HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping, (5) positive results in HPV-16 genotyping or, if genotyping results were negative, reflex LBC testing that found ASC-US or worse, and (6) positive results in HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping or, if genotyping results were negative, reflex LBC testing that found ASC-US or worse. Data were analyzed from October 2017 to August 2018. Exposures: Liquid-based cytological testing with simultaneous HPV-16 and HPV-18 genotyping. Women whose HPV genotyping results were positive for HPV-16 or HPV-18 or whose LBC results found ASC-US or worse and a random set of negative and normal results were referred to colposcopy with histologic analysis used for disease confirmation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical performance of each test strategy for detection of CIN grade 2 or higher. Secondary outcomes included resource utilization of each triage scenario, measured by the number of tests performed, the referral rate for colposcopy, and the numbers of colposcopies per CIN grade 2 or higher detected. Results: A total of 36 212 women (median [interquartile range] age, 40 [35-47] years) were screened, and 4051 women (11.2%) had high-risk HPV. Of these women, 1109 (24.6%) were found to have HPV-16, HPV-18, or ASC-US or worse. Further histologic testing detected CIN grade 2 or higher in 110 of 788 women (14.0%) who underwent follow-up colposcopy. Sensitivity and specificity for 3 main triage strategies were 42.9% and 74.0% for LBC; 58.3% and 54.4% for HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping; and 86.6% and 34.0% for HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping with reflex LBC. The referral rate to colposcopy was 29% for HPV-16/HPV-18 with reflex LBC, which was 2-fold higher than the referral rate of 12% for LBC. Conclusions and Relevance: Triage of women with high-risk HPV with HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping with reflex LBC was significantly associated with improvement in detection of CIN grade 2 or higher compared with LBC alone. The benefit of disease prevented may outweigh the cost of increasing requirements for colposcopy services in settings with limited adherence to follow-up after a positive screening result.

Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.

Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Evaluation of Type Replacement Following HPV16/18 Vaccination: Pooled Analysis of Two Randomized Trials.

Background: Current HPV vaccines do not protect against all oncogenic HPV types. Following vaccination, type replacement may occur, especially if different HPV types competitively interact during natural infection. Because of their common route of transmission, it is difficult to assess type interactions in observational studies. Our aim was to evaluate type replacement in the setting of HPV vaccine randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Data were pooled from the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial (CVT; NCT00128661) and PATRICIA trial (NCT001226810)-two large-scale, double-blind RCTs of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine-to compare cumulative incidence of nonprotected HPV infections across trial arms after four years. Negative rate difference estimates (rate in control minus vaccine arm) were interpreted as evidence of replacement if the associated 95% confidence interval excluded zero. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: After applying relevant exclusion criteria, 21 596 women were included in our analysis (HPV arm = 10 750; control arm = 10 846). Incidence rates (per 1000 infection-years) were lower in the HPV arm than in the control arm for grouped nonprotected oncogenic types (rate difference = 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.9 to 2.3) and oncogenic/nononcogenic types (rate difference = 0.2, 95% CI = -0.3 to 0.7). Focusing on individual HPV types separately, no deleterious effect was observed. In contrast, a statistically significant protective effect (positive rate difference and 95% CI excluded zero) was observed against oncogenic HPV types 35, 52, 58, and 68/73, as well as nononcogenic types 6 and 70. Conclusion: HPV type replacement does not occur among vaccinated individuals within four years and is unlikely to occur in vaccinated populations.

Health Service Accessibility and Risk in Cervical Cancer Prevention: Comparing Rural Versus Nonrural Residence in New Mexico.

PURPOSE: Multiple intrapersonal and structural barriers, including geography, may prevent women from engaging in cervical cancer preventive care such as screening, diagnostic colposcopy, and excisional precancer treatment procedures. Geographic accessibility, stratified by rural and nonrural areas, to necessary services across the cervical cancer continuum of preventive care is largely unknown. METHODS: Health care facility data for New Mexico (2010-2012) was provided by the New Mexico Human Papillomavirus Pap Registry (NMHPVPR), the first population-based statewide cervical cancer screening registry in the United States. Travel distance and time between the population-weighted census tract centroid to the nearest facility providing screening, diagnostic, and excisional treatment services were examined using proximity analysis by rural and nonrural census tracts. Mann-Whitney test (P < .05) was used to determine if differences were significant and Cohen's r to measure effect. FINDINGS: Across all cervical cancer preventive health care services and years, women who resided in rural areas had a significantly greater geographic accessibility burden when compared to nonrural areas (4.4 km vs 2.5 km and 4.9 minutes vs 3.0 minutes for screening; 9.9 km vs 4.2 km and 10.4 minutes vs 4.9 minutes for colposcopy; and 14.8 km vs 6.6 km and 14.4 minutes vs 7.4 minutes for precancer treatment services, all P < .001). CONCLUSION: Improvements in cervical cancer prevention should address the potential benefits of providing the full spectrum of screening, diagnostic and precancer treatment services within individual facilities. Accessibility, assessments distinguishing rural and nonrural areas are essential when monitoring and recommending changes to service infrastructures (eg, mobile versus brick and mortar).

Population-based prevalence of cervical infection with human papillomavirus genotypes 16 and 18 and other high risk types in Tlaxcala, Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer remains an important cause of cancer mortality for Mexican women. HPV 16/18 typing may help to improve cervical cancer screening. Here we present the prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) including HPV16 and HPV18 from the FRIDA (Forwarding Research for Improved Detection and Access) population. METHODS: Beginning in 2013, we recruited 30,829 women aged 30-64 in Tlaxcala, Mexico. Cervical samples were collected and tested for 14 hrHPV genotypes (16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, and 68). We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios with 95 % confidence intervals for hrHPV infections according to putative risk factors. RESULTS: Prevalence of infection with any of the 14 hrHPV types was 11.0 %. The age-specific prevalence of all hrHPV formed a U-shaped curve with a higher prevalence for women aged 30-39 and 50-64 than women aged 40-49. Across all age groups, 2.0 % of women were positive for HPV16 and/or HPV18 (HPV16/18), respectively. HPV16/18 prevalence also showed a U-shaped curve with increased prevalence estimates for women aged both 30-39 and 60-64. Both prevalence curves had a significant quadratic age coefficient. Infections with hrHPV were positively associated with an increased number of lifetime sexual partners, a history of sexually transmitted disease, being unmarried, use of hormonal contraception, having a history of smoking and reported condom use in the multivariate model. CONCLUSIONS: The FRIDA population has a bimodal distribution of both hrHPV and HPV16/18 positivity with higher prevalences at ages 30-39 and 60-64. These findings will help to evaluate triage algorithms based on HPV genotyping. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02510027 .

HPV vaccination impact on a cervical cancer screening program: methods of the FASTER-Tlalpan Study in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: To outline the design of a clinical trial to evaluate the impact of HPV vaccination as part of a hrHPV-based primary screening program to extend screening intervals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 18,000 women aged 25-45 years, attending the regular cervical cancer-screening program in primary health care services in Tlalpan, Mexico City, will be invited to the study. Eligible participants will be assigned to one of three comparison groups: 1) HPV16/18 vaccine and hrHPV-based screening; 2) HPV6/11/16/18 vaccine and hrHPV-based screening; 3) Control group who will receive only hrHPV-based screening. Strict surveillance of hrHPV persistent infection and occurrence of precancerous lesions will be conducted to estimate safety profiles at different screening intervals; participants will undergo diagnosis confirmation and treatment as necessary. CONCLUSION: The FASTER-Tlalpan Study will provide insights into new approaches of cervical cancer prevention programs. It will offer valuable information on potential benefits of combining HPV vaccination and hrHPV-based screening to safety extend screening intervals.

HPV vaccination impact on a cervical cancer screening program: methods of the FASTER-Tlalpan Study in Mexico / Impacto de la vacunación de VPH en un programa de tamizaje de cáncer cervical: métodos del Estudio FASTER-Tlalpan en México

Abstract Objective: To outline the design of a clinical trial to evaluate the impact of HPV vaccination as part of a hrHPV-based primary screening program to extend screening intervals. Materials and methods: A total of 18,000 women aged 25-45 years, attending the regular cervical cancer-screening program in primary health care services in Tlalpan, Mexico City, will be invited to the study. Eligible participants will be assigned to one of three comparison groups: 1) HPV16/18 vaccine and hrHPV-based screening; 2) HPV6/11/16/18 vaccine and hrHPV-based screening; 3) Control group who will receive only hrHPV-based screening. Strict surveillance of hrHPV persistent infection and occurrence of precancerous lesions will be conducted to estimate safety profiles at different screening intervals; participants will undergo diagnosis confirmation and treatment as necessary. Conclusion: The FASTER-Tlalpan Study will provide insights into new approaches of cervical cancer prevention programs. It will offer valuable information on potential benefits of combining HPV vaccination and hrHPV-based screening to safety extend screening intervals.

Resumen Objetivo: Describir los métodos de un ensayo clínico que permita evaluar el impacto de la incorporación de la vacunación contra VPH en el programa de detección oportuna de cáncer cervical con el fin de ampliar los intervalos de tamizaje. Material y métodos: Un total de 18 000 mujeres entre 25 y 45 años, usuarias del programa de detección oportuna de cáncer cervical de la Ciudad de México en Tlalpan, serán invitadas a participar en el estudio. Las mujeres elegibles serán aleatorizadas a uno de tres grupos de comparación: 1) Vacunación contra VPH16/18 y tamizaje con VPHar; 2) Vacunación contra VPH6/11/16/18 y tamizadas con VPHar; 3) Grupo control que será sólo tamizado con VPHar. Se llevará a cabo una estrecha vigilancia de la infección persistente de VPHar y de la ocurrencia de lesiones precancerosas, con el fin de estimar el perfil de seguridad de intervalos de tamizaje de distinta duración. Todas las participantes contarán con procedimientos de confirmación diagnóstica y tratamiento en caso necesario. Conclusión: El estudio FASTER-Tlalpan introducirá una nueva visión de la implementación de nuevos abordajes en la prevención de cáncer cervical. Ofrecerá información de los potenciales beneficios de la combinación de la vacunación contra VPH y el tamizaje basado en VPHar para extender los intervalos de tamizaje.

Efficacy of fewer than three doses of an HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine: combined analysis of data from the Costa Rica Vaccine and PATRICIA Trials.

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence to suggest that one or two doses of the HPV vaccine provides similar protection to the three-dose regimen. The main aim of the study was to ascertain HPV-16/18 vaccine efficacy in both full and naive cohorts and to explore protection conferred against non-vaccine HPV types, by number of doses received. METHODS: Summary data from the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial (CVT; NCT00128661) and ~the PATRICIA trial (NCT001226810), two phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled clinical trials of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in young women, were combined in a post-hoc analysis (GlaxoSmithKline [GSK] e-track number 202142) to investigate the efficacy of fewer than three doses of the HPV-16/18 vaccine after 4 years of follow-up. Women were randomly assigned to receive three doses of the HPV-16/18 vaccine or to a control vaccine; yet, some received fewer doses. After exclusion of women with less than 12 months of follow-up or those who were HPV-16/18 DNA-positive at enrolment (for the HPV-16/18 endpoint), we calculated vaccine efficacy against one-time detection of incident HPV infections after three, two, and one dose(s). The primary study endpoint was one-time detection of first incident HPV-16/18 infections accumulated during the follow-up phase. FINDINGS: We assessed vaccine efficacy against incident HPV-16/18 infection in the modified total vaccinated cohort (22 327 received three doses, 1185 two doses, 543 one dose). Vaccine efficacy against incident HPV-16/18 infections for three doses was 77·0% (95% CI 74·7-79·1), two doses was 76·0% (62·0-85·3), and one dose was 85·7% (70·7-93·7). Vaccine efficacy against incident HPV-31/33/45 infections for three doses was 59·7% (56·0-63·0), two doses was 37·7% (12·4-55·9), and one dose was 36·6% (-5·4 to 62·2). Vaccine efficacy against incident HPV-16/18 infection for two-dose women who received their second dose at 1 month was 75·3% (54·2-87·5) and 82·6% (42·3-96·1) for those who received the second dose at 6 months (CVT data only). Vaccine efficacy against HPV-31/33/45 for two-dose women who received their second dose at 6 months (68·1%, 27·0-87·0; CVT data only), but not those receiving it at one month (10·1%, -42·0 to 43·3), was similar to the three-dose group. INTERPRETATION: 4 years after vaccination of women aged 15-25 years, one and two doses of the HPV-16/18 vaccine seem to protect against cervical HPV-16/18 infections, similar to the protection provided by the three-dose schedule. Two doses separated by 6 months additionally provided some cross-protection. These data argue for a direct assessment of one-dose efficacy of the HPV-16/18 vaccine. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health, and Ministry of Health of Costa Rica (CVT); GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (PATRICIA).

Overall efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against grade 3 or greater cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN2+) is the surrogate endpoint used in licensure trials of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. Vaccine efficacy against CIN3+, the immediate precursor to invasive cervical cancer, is more difficult to measure because of its lower incidence, but provides the most stringent evidence of potential cancer prevention. We report vaccine efficacy against CIN3+ and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) in the end-of-study analysis of PATRICIA (PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults). METHODS: Healthy women aged 15-25 years with no more than six lifetime sexual partners were included in PATRICIA, irrespective of their baseline HPV DNA status, HPV-16 or HPV-18 serostatus, or cytology. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive an HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine or a control hepatitis A vaccine via an internet-based central randomisation system using a minimisation algorithm to account for age ranges and study sites. The patients and study investigators were masked to allocated vaccine. The primary endpoint of PATRICIA has been reported previously. In the present end-of-study analysis, we focus on CIN3+ and AIS in the populations of most clinical interest, the total vaccinated cohort (TVC) and the TVC-naive. The TVC comprised all women who received at least one vaccine dose, approximating catch-up populations and including sexually active women (vaccine n=9319; control=9325). The TVC-naive comprised women with no evidence of oncogenic HPV infection at baseline, approximating early adolescent HPV exposure (vaccine n=5824; control=5820). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00122681. FINDINGS: Vaccine efficacy against CIN3+ associated with HPV-16/18 was 100% (95% CI 85·5-100) in the TVC-naive and 45·7% (22·9-62·2) in the TVC. Vaccine efficacy against all CIN3+ (irrespective of HPV type in the lesion and including lesions with no HPV DNA detected) was 93·2% (78·9-98·7) in the TVC-naive and 45·6% (28·8-58·7) in the TVC. In the TVC-naive, vaccine efficacy against all CIN3+ was higher than 90% in all age groups. In the TVC, vaccine efficacy against all CIN3+ and CIN3+ associated with HPV-16/18 was highest in the 15-17 year age group and progressively decreased in the 18-20 year and 21-25 year age groups. Vaccine efficacy against all AIS was 100% (31·0-100) and 76·9% (16·0-95·8) in the TVC-naive and TVC, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred in 835 (9·0%) and 829 (8·9%) women in the vaccine and control groups, respectively; only ten events (0·1%) and five events (0·1%), respectively, were considered to be related to vaccination. INTERPRETATION: PATRICIA end-of-study results show excellent vaccine efficacy against CIN3+ and AIS irrespective of HPV DNA in the lesion. Population-based vaccination that incorporates the HPV-16/18 vaccine and high coverage of early adolescents might have the potential to substantially reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

Cross-protective efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the efficacy of the human papillomavirus HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types in the end-of-study analysis after 4 years of follow-up in PATRICIA (PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults). METHODS: Healthy women aged 15-25 years with no more than six lifetime sexual partners were included in PATRICIA irrespective of their baseline HPV DNA status, HPV-16 or HPV-18 serostatus, or cytology. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to HPV-16/18 vaccine or a control hepatitis A vaccine, via an internet-based central randomisation system using a minimisation algorithm to account for age ranges and study sites. The study was double-blind. The primary endpoint of PATRICIA has been reported previously; the present analysis evaluates cross-protective vaccine efficacy against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types in the end-of-study analysis. Analyses were done for three cohorts: the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy (ATP-E; vaccine n=8067, control n=8047), total vaccinated HPV-naive cohort (TVC-naive; no evidence of infection with 14 oncogenic HPV types at baseline, approximating young adolescents before sexual debut; vaccine n=5824, control n=5820), and the total vaccinated cohort (TVC; all women who received at least one vaccine dose, approximating catch-up populations that include sexually active women; vaccine n=9319, control=9325). Vaccine efficacy was evaluated against 6-month persistent infection, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN2+) associated with 12 non-vaccine HPV types (individually or as composite endpoints), and CIN3+ associated with the composite of 12 non-vaccine HPV types. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00122681. FINDINGS: Consistent vaccine efficacy against persistent infection and CIN2+ (with or without HPV-16/18 co-infection) was seen across cohorts for HPV-33, HPV-31, HPV-45, and HPV-51. In the most conservative analysis of vaccine efficacy against CIN2+, where all cases co-infected with HPV-16/18 were removed, vaccine efficacy was noted for HPV-33 in all cohorts, and for HPV-31 in the ATP-E and TVC-naive. Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with the composite of 12 non-vaccine HPV types (31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, and 68), with or without HPV-16/18 co-infection, was 46·8% (95% CI 30·7-59·4) in the ATP-E, 56·2% (37·2-69·9) in the TVC-naive, and 34·2% (20·4-45·8) in the TVC. Corresponding values for CIN3+ were 73·8% (48·3-87·9), 91·4% (65·0-99·0), and 47·5% (22·8-64·8). INTERPRETATION: Data from the end-of-study analysis of PATRICIA show cross-protective efficacy of the HPV-16/18 vaccine against four oncogenic non-vaccine HPV types-HPV-33, HPV-31, HPV-45, and HPV-51-in different trial cohorts representing diverse groups of women. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

Impact of human papillomavirus (HPV)-6/11/16/18 vaccine on all HPV-associated genital diseases in young women.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the prophylactic vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (HPV6/11/16/18) on all HPV-associated genital disease was investigated in a population that approximates sexually naive women in that they were "negative to 14 HPV types" and in a mixed population of HPV-exposed and -unexposed women (intention-to-treat group). METHODS: This analysis studied 17 622 women aged 15-26 years who were enrolled in one of two randomized, placebo-controlled, efficacy trials for the HPV6/11/16/18 vaccine (first patient on December 28, 2001, and studies completed July 31, 2007). Vaccine or placebo was given at day 1, month 2, and month 6. All women underwent cervicovaginal sampling and Papanicolaou (Pap) testing at day 1 and every 6-12 months thereafter. Outcomes were any cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; any external anogenital and vaginal lesions; Pap test abnormalities; and procedures such as colposcopy and definitive therapy. Absolute rates are expressed as women with endpoint per 100 person-years at risk. RESULTS: The average follow-up was 3.6 years (maximum of 4.9 years). In the population that was negative to 14 HPV types, vaccination was up to 100% effective in reducing the risk of HPV16/18-related high-grade cervical, vulvar, and vaginal lesions and of HPV6/11-related genital warts. In the intention-to-treat group, vaccination also statistically significantly reduced the risk of any high-grade cervical lesions (19.0% reduction; rate vaccine = 1.43, rate placebo = 1.76, difference = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.13 to 0.54), vulvar and vaginal lesions (50.7% reduction; rate vaccine = 0.10, rate placebo = 0.20, difference = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.16), genital warts (62.0% reduction; rate vaccine = 0.44, rate placebo = 1.17, difference = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.87), Pap abnormalities (11.3% reduction; rate vaccine = 10.36, rate placebo = 11.68, difference = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.90), and cervical definitive therapy (23.0% reduction; rate vaccine = 1.97, rate placebo = 2.56, difference = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.83), irrespective of causal HPV type. CONCLUSIONS: High-coverage HPV vaccination programs among adolescents and young women may result in a rapid reduction of genital warts, cervical cytological abnormalities, and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. In the longer term, substantial reductions in the rates of cervical, vulvar, and vaginal cancers may follow.

Sustained efficacy up to 4-5 years of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine against human papilomavirus types 16-18: folllow-up from a randomized control trial

Effective vaccination against HPV 16 and HPV 18 to prevent cervical cancer will require a high level ofsustained protection against infection and precancerous lesions. Our aim was to assess the long-term effi cacy,immunogenicity, and safety of a bivalent HPV-16/18 L1 virus-like particle AS04 vaccine against incident and persistentinfection with HPV 16 and HPV 18 and their associated cytological and histological outcomes

Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection causes cervical cancer and genital warts. Young women (1106) were randomized to receive one of three formulations of a quadrivalent HPV (Types 6/11/16/18) L1 virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine or one of two placebo formulations. The goal was to assess vaccine safety and immunogenicity in baseline HPV 6/11/16 or 18-naïve and previously infected subjects. All three formulations were highly immunogenic. At Month 2 (postdose 1), among women with vaccine-type antibodies at baseline, vaccine-induced anti-HPV responses were approximately 12- to 26-fold higher than those observed in baseline-naïve women, suggesting an anamnestic response. Following an initial, similar sized decline, anti-HPV responses plateaued and remained stable through end-of-study (3.0 years). No vaccine-related serious adverse experiences were reported.