Dataset Information

Proof-of-principle evaluation of the efficacy of fewer than three doses of a bivalent HPV16/18 vaccine.

ABSTRACT: Three-dose regimens for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are expensive and difficult to complete, especially in settings where the need for cervical cancer prevention is greatest.We evaluated the vaccine efficacy of fewer than three doses of the HPV16/18 vaccine Cervarix in our Costa Rica Vaccine Trial. Women were randomly assigned to receive three doses of the HPV16/18 vaccine or to a control vaccine and were followed for incident HPV16 or HPV18 infection that persisted in visits that were 10 or more months apart (median follow-up 4.2 years). After excluding women who had no follow-up or who were HPV16 and HPV18 DNA positive at enrollment, 5967 women received three vaccine doses (2957 HPV vaccine vs 3010 control vaccine), 802 received two doses (422 HPV vs. 380 control), and 384 received one dose (196 HPV vs. 188 control). Reasons for receiving fewer doses and other pre- and post-randomization characteristics were balanced within each dosage group between women receiving the HPV and control vaccines.Incident HPV16 or HPV18 infections that persisted for 1 year were unrelated to dosage of the control vaccine. Vaccine efficacy was 80.9% for three doses of the HPV vaccine (95% confidence interval [CI] = 71.1% to 87.7%; 25 and 133 events in the HPV and control arms, respectively), 84.1% for two doses (95% CI = 50.2% to 96.3%; 3 and 17 events), and 100% for one dose (95% CI = 66.5% to 100%; 0 and 10 events).Four years after vaccination of women who appeared to be uninfected, this nonrandomized analysis suggests that two doses of the HPV16/18 vaccine, and maybe even one dose, are as protective as three doses.

SUBMITTER: Kreimer AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3186781 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Proof-of-principle evaluation of the efficacy of fewer than three doses of a bivalent HPV16/18 vaccine.

Kreimer Aimée R AR Rodriguez Ana Cecilia AC Hildesheim Allan A Herrero Rolando R Porras Carolina C Schiffman Mark M González Paula P Solomon Diane D Jiménez Silvia S Schiller John T JT Lowy Douglas R DR Quint Wim W Sherman Mark E ME Schussler John J Wacholder Sholom S

Journal of the National Cancer Institute 20110909 19

<h4>Background</h4>Three-dose regimens for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are expensive and difficult to complete, especially in settings where the need for cervical cancer prevention is greatest.<h4>Methods</h4>We evaluated the vaccine efficacy of fewer than three doses of the HPV16/18 vaccine Cervarix in our Costa Rica Vaccine Trial. Women were randomly assigned to receive three doses of the HPV16/18 vaccine or to a control vaccine and were followed for incident HPV16 or HPV18 infection t ...[more]

PMID: 21908768

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Previously, we demonstrated similar human papillomavirus (HPV)16/18 vaccine efficacy estimates and stable HPV16/18 antibody levels four years postvaccination in a nonrandomized analysis of women who received a varying number of doses of the bivalent HPV16/18 vaccine. Here we extend data to seven years following initial vaccination. Methods:We evaluated HPV16/18-vaccinated women who received one (n?=?134), two (n 0/1 = 193, n 0/6 = 79), or three doses (n?=?2043) to a median of 6.9?years postvaccination. Cervical HPV DNA was measured with the SPF10- DEIA-LiPA PCR system; HPV16/18-specific antibody levels were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (n?=?486). Infection and immunological measures were compared across vaccine dose groups. Prevalent HPV infection at year 7 was also compared with an unvaccinated control group (UCG). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results:Among women in the three-dose, two-dose 0/6 , two-dose 0/1 , and one-dose groups, cumulative incident HPV16/18 infection rates (No. of events/No. of individuals) were 4.3% (88/2036, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.5% to 5.3%), 3.8% (3/78, 95% CI?=?1.0% to 10.1%), 3.6% (7/192, 95% CI?=?1.6% to 7.1%), and 1.5% (2/133, 95% CI?=?0.3% to 4.9%; P = 1.00, .85, .17 comparing the two-dose 0/6 , two-dose 0/1 , and one-dose groups to the three-dose group, respectively). The prevalence of other carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic HPV types, excluding HPV16/18/31/33/45, were high and not statistically different among all dose groups, indicating that the low incidence of HPV16/18 in the one- and two-dose groups was not due to lack of exposure. At seven years, 100% of participants in all dose groups remained HPV16 and HPV18 seropositive. A non-statistically significant decrease in the geometric mean of the HPV16 antibody levels between years 4 and 7 was observed among women in the three-dose group: -10.8% (95% CI = -25.3% to 6.6%); two-dose (0/6?months) group: -17.3% (95% CI = -39.3% to 12.8%), two-dose (0/1?month) group: -6.9% (95% CI = -22.1% to 11.2%), and one-dose group: -5.5% (95% CI = -29.7% to 27.0%); results were similar for HPV18. Conclusions:At an average of seven years of follow-up, we observed similar low rates of HPV16/18 infections and slight, if any, decreases in HPV16/18 antibody levels by dose group.

Project description: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).

Project description:BackgroundThe 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 .MethodsData 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsThe AS04-HPV16/18 vaccine provides some additional cross-protection beyond established protected types, which partially explains the high efficacy against CIN3+.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Anal cancer remains rare (incidence of about 1·5 per 100,000 women yearly), but rates are increasing in many countries. Human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 infections cause most cases of anal cancer. We assessed efficacy of an AS04-adjuvanted HPV 16 and HPV 18 vaccine against anal infection with HPV 16, HPV 18, or both (HPV 16/18). METHODS:Women from Costa Rica were registered between June 28, 2004, and Dec 21, 2005, in a randomised double-blind controlled trial that was designed to assess vaccine efficacy against persistent cervical HPV 16/18 infections and associated precancerous lesions. Eligible women were residents of Guanacaste and selected areas of Puntarenas, Costa Rica, age 18-25 years, in good general health, willing to provide informed consent, and were not pregnant or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive an HPV vaccine (Cervarix, GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium) or a control hepatitis A vaccine (modified preparation of Havrix, GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium). Vaccines were administered in three 0·5 mL doses at enrolment, 1 month, and 6 months. Women, selected at the final blinded study visit 4 years after vaccination, provided anal specimens for assessment of vaccine efficacy against anal HPV 16/18 infection. Prevalence of anal HPV 16/18 infections, reported as vaccine efficacy, was the primary endpoint of the study described here. Vaccine efficacy against cervical HPV 16/18 infection in the same women at the 4-year visit was used as a comparator. Analyses were done in a restricted cohort of women who were negative for both cervical HPV 16 and HPV 18 DNA and who were HPV 16 and HPV 18 seronegative before enrolment (HPV naive), and also in the full cohort of women who provided an anal specimen. Investigators were masked to group assignment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00128661. FINDINGS:All women who attended the final blinded study visit and consented to anal specimen collection were included in the analysis (4210 of 6352 eligible women). In the full cohort, vaccine efficacy against prevalent HPV 16/18 infection measured one-time, 4 years post vaccination was lower at the anus (62·0%, 95% CI 47·1-73·1) compared with the cervix (76·4%, 67·0-83·5; p for interaction by anatomical site 0·031). In the restricted cohort, vaccine efficacy against anal HPV 16/18 infection was 83·6% (66·7-92·8), which was similar to vaccine efficacy against cervical HPV 16/18 infection (87·9%, 77·4-94·0). Safety issues were not addressed in the current analysis. Additional safety data will be published later in a separate article. INTERPRETATION:The AS04-adjuvanted vaccine affords strong protection against anal HPV infection, particularly among women more likely to be HPV naive at enrolment. FUNDING:National Cancer Institute with contributions from the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health. Vaccine was provided by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

Project description:Leishmaniasis is a spectrum of diseases transmitted by sand fly vectors that deposit Leishmania spp. parasites in the host skin during blood feeding. Currently, available treatment options are limited, associated with high toxicity and emerging resistance. Even though a vaccine for human leishmaniasis is considered an achievable goal, to date we still do not have one available, a consequence (amongst other factors) of a lack of pre-clinical to clinical translatability. Pre-exposure to uninfected sand fly bites or immunization with defined sand fly salivary proteins was shown to negatively impact infection. Still, cross-protection reports are rare and dependent on the phylogenetic proximity of the sand fly species, meaning that the applicability of a sand fly saliva-based vaccine will be limited to a defined geography, one parasite species and one form of leishmaniasis. As a proof of principle of a future vector saliva-based pan-Leishmania vaccine, we engineered through a reverse vaccinology approach that maximizes translation to humans, a fusion protein consisting of immunogenic portions of PdSP15 and LJL143, sand fly salivary proteins demonstrated as potential vaccine candidates against cutaneous and visceral leishmaniasis, respectively. The in silico analysis was validated ex vivo, through T cell proliferation experiments, proving that the fusion protein (administered as a DNA vaccine) maintained the immunogenicity of both PdSP15 and LJL143. Additionally, while no significant effect was detected in the context of L. major transmission by P. duboscqi, this DNA vaccine was defined as partially protective, in the context of L. major transmission by L. longipalpis sand flies. Importantly, a high IFNγ response alone was not enough to confer protection, that mainly correlated with low T cell mediated Leishmania-specific IL-4 and IL-10 responses, and consequently with high pro/anti-inflammatory cytokine ratios. Overall our immunogenicity data suggests that to design a potentially safe vector-based pan-Leishmania vaccine, without geographic restrictions and against all forms of leishmaniasis is an achievable goal. This is why we propose our approach as a proof-of principle, perhaps not only applicable to the anti-Leishmania vector-based vaccines' field, but also to other branches of knowledge that require the design of multi-epitope T cell vaccines with a higher potential for translation.

Dataset Information

Proof-of-principle evaluation of the efficacy of fewer than three doses of a bivalent HPV16/18 vaccine.

Publications

Proof-of-principle evaluation of the efficacy of fewer than three doses of a bivalent HPV16/18 vaccine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets