Comparative immunogenicity and safety of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 vaccine and HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine: follow-up from months 12-24 in a Phase III randomized study of healthy women aged 18-45 years.

In this observer-blind study (NCT00423046), women (N=1,106), stratified by age (18-26, 27-35, 36-45 y), were randomized (1:1) to receive the HPV-16/18 vaccine (Cervarix®, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Months 0, 1, 6) or the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (Gardasil® Merck & Co., Inc., Months 0, 2, 6). Month 7 results were previously reported; we now report Month 24 results. In the according-to-protocol cohort for immunogenicity (seronegative and DNA-negative at baseline for HPV type analyzed), seropositivity rates of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) [pseudovirion-based neutralization assay] were, across all age strata, 100% (HPV-16/18 vaccine) and 97.5-100% (HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine) for HPV-16, and 99.0-100% (HPV-16/18 vaccine) and 72.3-84.4% (HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine) for HPV-18. Corresponding geometric mean titers (GMTs) were 2.4-5.8-fold higher for HPV-16 and 7.7-9.4-fold higher for HPV-18 with the HPV-16/18 vaccine versus the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine; HPV-16 and HPV-18 GMTs were significantly higher with the HPV-16/18 vaccine than the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (p< 0.0001) in the total vaccinated cohort (received ≥1 vaccine dose, irrespective of baseline sero/DNA-status). Similar results were obtained using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Positivity rates and GMTs of antigen-specific IgG antibodies in cervicovaginal secretions (ELISA) were not significantly different between vaccines. At Month 24, CD4⁺ T-cell responses for HPV-16 and HPV-18 were higher with the HPV-16/18 vaccine; memory B-cell response was higher for HPV-18 with the HPV-16/18 vaccine and similar between vaccines for HPV-16. Both vaccines were generally well tolerated. Although an immunological correlate of protection has not been defined, differences in the magnitude of immune response between vaccines may represent determinants of duration of protection.

Comparison of the immunogenicity and safety of Cervarix and Gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer vaccines in healthy women aged 18-45 years.

This observer-blind study compared the prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) and Gardasil (Merck), by assessing immunogenicity and safety through one month after completion of the three-dose vaccination course. Women (n = 1106) were stratified by age (18-26, 27-35, 36-45 years) and randomized (1:1) to receive Cervarix (Months 0, 1, 6) or Gardasil (Months 0, 2, 6). At Month 7 after first vaccination, all women in the according-to-protocol cohort who were seronegative/DNA negative before vaccination for the HPV type analyzed had seroconverted for HPV-16 and HPV-18 serum neutralizing antibodies, as measured by pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA), except for two women aged 27-35 years in the Gardasil group who did not seroconvert for HPV-18 (98%). Geometric mean titers of serum neutralizing antibodies ranged from 2.3-4.8-fold higher for HPV-16 and 6.8-9.1-fold higher for HPV-18 after vaccination with Cervarix compared with Gardasil, across all age strata. In the total vaccinated cohort (all women who received at least one vaccine dose, regardless of their serological and DNA status prior to vaccination), Cervarix induced significantly higher serum neutralizing antibody titers in all age strata (p < 0.0001). Positivity rates for anti-HPV-16 and -18 neutralizing antibodies in cervicovaginal secretions and circulating HPV-16 and -18 specific memory B-cell frequencies were also higher after vaccination with Cervarix compared with Gardasil. Both vaccines were generally well tolerated. The incidence of unsolicited adverse events was comparable between vaccinated groups. The incidence of solicited symptoms was generally higher after Cervarix, injection site reactions being most common. However, compliance rates with the three-dose schedules were similarly high (>or= 84%) for both vaccines. Although the importance of differences in magnitude of immune response between these vaccines is unknown, they may represent determinants of duration of protection against HPV-16/18. Long-term studies evaluating duration of efficacy after vaccination are needed for both vaccines.

Correlation between direct ELISA, single epitope-based inhibition ELISA and pseudovirion-based neutralization assay for measuring anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibody response after vaccination with the AS04-adjuvanted HPV-16/18 cervical cancer vaccine.

To monitor immune status during clinical trials and after vaccine registration, several assays have been developed to measure type-specific human papillomavirus (HPV) serum antibody levels. These include neutralization assays, single epitope-based inhibition immunoassays, and direct enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). Neutralization assays based on multiple epitopes and independent of vaccine material are considered the 'gold standard' for unbiased assessment of the protective potential of vaccine-induced antibodies. However, their use in large clinical trials is challenging. Here, we compare both the direct ELISA and the single epitope-based inhibition ELISA with the pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) for HPV-16/18 antibody responses in vaccinated women enrolled in trials of Cervarix, GSK's cervical cancer vaccine. The direct ELISA, which is based on multiple epitopes, was shown to have a higher degree of sensitivity and correlation with the PBNA when compared with the single epitope-based inhibition ELISA. Among double-positive results, high correlations were observed between the PBNA and the direct ELISA (0.70-0.88 for HPV-16 and 0.82-0.94 for HPV-18) and also with the single epitope-based inhibition ELISA (0.60-0.89 for HPV-16 and 0.57-0.96 for HPV-18) in women aged 15-25 years. The correlation persisted up to 6.4 years after primary vaccination. Similar levels of correlation were observed for adolescents aged 10-14 years and women aged 46-55 years. Therefore, the direct ELISA appears to be an excellent surrogate for neutralizing activity and can be used to evaluate antibody response induced by L1 virus-like particle-based cervical cancer vaccines, regardless of time elapsed after vaccination (up to 6.4 years) and the age of the vaccine recipient.

Comparative humoral and cellular immunogenicity and safety of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine and HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine in healthy women aged 18-45 years: follow-up through Month 48 in a Phase III randomized study.

We previously reported higher anti-HPV-16 and -18 immune responses induced by HPV-16/18 vaccine compared with HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine at Month 7 (one month after completion of full vaccination series) in women aged 18-45 y in an observer-blind study NCT00423046; the differences of immune response magnitudes were maintained up to Month 24. Here we report follow-up data through Month 48. At Month 48, in according-to-protocol cohort for immunogenicity (seronegative and DNA-negative for HPV type analyzed at baseline), geometric mean titers of serum neutralizing antibodies were 2.0- to 5.2-fold higher (HPV-16) and 8.6- to 12.8-fold higher (HPV-18) in HPV-16/18 vaccine group than in HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine group. The majority of women in both vaccine groups remained seropositive for HPV-16. The same trend was observed for HPV-18 in HPV-16/18 vaccine group; however, seropositivity rates in HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine group decreased considerably, particularly in the older age groups. In the total vaccinated cohort (regardless of baseline serological and HPV-DNA status), anti-HPV-16 and -18 neutralizing antibody levels induced by HPV-16/18 vaccine were higher than those induced by HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine. CD4+ T-cell response for HPV-16 and HPV-18 was higher in HPV-16/18 vaccine group than in HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine group. Memory B-cell responses appeared similar between vaccine groups. Both vaccines were generally well tolerated. Overall, the higher immune response observed with the HPV-16/18 vaccine was maintained up to Month 48. A head-to-head study incorporating clinical endpoints would be required to confirm whether the observed differences in immune response between the vaccines influence the duration of protection they provided.