Dataset Information

Effectiveness of various human papillomavirus vaccination strategies: A community randomized trial in Finland.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

We conducted a community-randomized trial (NCTBLINDED) in Finland to assess gender-neutral and girls-only vaccination strategies with the AS04-adjuvanted human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 (AS04-HPV-16/18)vaccine.

Methods

Girls and boys (12-15 years) were invited. We randomized 33 communities (1:1:1 ratio): Arm A: 90% of randomly selected girls and boys received AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine and 10% received hepatitis B vaccine (HBV); Arm B: 90% of randomly selected girls received AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine, 10% of girls received HBV, and all boys received HBV; Arm C: all participants received HBV. Effectiveness measurements against prevalence of HPV-16/18 cervical infection were estimated in girls at 18.5 years. The main measures were: (1) overall effectiveness comparing Arms A or B, regardless of vaccination status, vs Arm C; (2) total effectiveness comparing AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccinated girls in pooled Arms A/B vs Arm C; (3) indirect effectiveness (herd effect) comparing girls receiving HBV or unvaccinated in Arm A vs Arm C. Co-primary objectives were overall effectiveness following gender-neutral or girls-only vaccination.

Results

Of 80,272 adolescents invited, 34,412 were enrolled. Overall effectiveness was 23.8% (95% confidence interval: -19.0, 51.1; P = 0.232) with gender-neutral vaccination. Following girls-only vaccination, overall effectiveness was 49.6% (20.1, 68.2; P = 0.004). Total effectiveness was over 90% regardless of vaccination strategy. No herd effect was found. Immunogenicity of the AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine was high in both sexes.

Conclusions

This study illustrates the difficulty in conducting community randomized trials. It is not plausible that vaccinating boys would reduce overall effectiveness, and the apparent lack of herd effect was unexpected given findings from other studies. This analysis was likely confounded by several factors but confirms the vaccine's high total effectiveness as in clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Lehtinen M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8559511 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCervical cancer elimination through human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs requires the attainment of herd effect. Due to its uniquely high basic reproduction number, the vaccination coverage required to achieve herd effect against HPV type 16 exceeds what is attainable in most populations. We have compared how gender-neutral and girls-only vaccination strategies create herd effect against HPV16 under moderate vaccination coverage achieved in a population-based, community-randomized trial.Methods and findingsIn 2007-2010, the 1992-1995 birth cohorts of 33 Finnish communities were randomized to receive gender-neutral HPV vaccination (Arm A), girls-only HPV vaccination (Arm B), or no HPV vaccination (Arm C) (11 communities per trial arm). HPV16/18/31/33/35/45 seroprevalence differences between the pre-vaccination era (2005-2010) and post-vaccination era (2011-2016) were compared between all 8,022 unvaccinated women <23 years old and resident in the 33 communities during 2005-2016 (2,657, 2,691, and 2,674 in Arms A, B, and C, respectively). Post- versus pre-vaccination-era HPV seroprevalence ratios (PRs) were compared by arm. Possible outcome misclassification was quantified via probabilistic bias analysis. An HPV16 and HPV18 seroprevalence reduction was observed post-vaccination in the gender-neutral vaccination arm in the entire study population (PR16 = 0.64, 95% CI 0.10-0.85; PR18 = 0.72, 95% CI 0.22-0.96) and for HPV16 also in the herpes simplex virus type 2 seropositive core group (PR16 = 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.81). Observed reductions in HPV31/33/35/45 seroprevalence (PR31/33/35/45 = 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.97) were replicated in Arm C (PR31/33/35/45 = 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.90).ConclusionsIn this study we only observed herd effect against HPV16/18 after gender-neutral vaccination with moderate vaccination coverage. With only moderate vaccination coverage, a gender-neutral vaccination strategy can facilitate the control of even HPV16. Our findings may have limited transportability to other vaccination coverage levels.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00534638, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00534638.

Project description:ImportanceCervical cancer screening is a lifesaving intervention, with an array of approaches, including liquid-based cytology (LBC), molecular testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, and combinations via parallel cotesting or sequential triage. Maximizing screening efficacy while minimizing overtreatment is vital, especially when considering how the HPV vaccine will affect the interpretation of results.ObjectivesTo estimate the likely outcomes of different screening modalities and to model how the increasing uptake of the HPV vaccine could affect the interpretation of screening results.Design, setting, and participantsThis decision analytic model established a simple Markov model to compare the outcomes of different cervical cancer screening modalities on a simulated population of women (aged ≥25 years), considering different levels of HPV vaccination.Main outcomes and measuresThe number of cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 and 3 detected and missed, the number of false positives, and the number of tests required to achieve a given level of accuracy. Positive and negative predictive values of different modalities were simulated under varying levels of HPV vaccination and therefore HPV prevalence.ResultsIn a simulated population of 1000 women aged 25 years and older with an HPV prevalence of 2%, HPV-based modalities outperformed LBC-based approaches, detecting 19% more true positives (HPV test sensitivity, 89.9% [95% CI, 88.6%-91.1%]; LBC test sensitivity, 75.5% [95% CI, 66.6%-82.7%]). While cotesting markedly reduced missed cases, detecting 29% more true positives than LBC alone (19.5 [95% CI, 19.3-19.7] per 1000 women screened vs 15.1 [95% CI, 13.3-16.5] per 1000 women screened), it unacceptably increased excess colposcopy referral by 94% (184.4 [95% CI, 181.8-188.0] false positives per 1000 women screened vs 95.1 [95% CI, 93.1-97.0] false positives per 1000 women screened). By contrast, triage testing with reflex screening substantially reduced false positives by a factor of approximately 10 (eg, HPV with LBC triage, 9.6 [95% CI, 9.3-10.0] per 1000 women screened). Over a lifetime of screening, reflex approaches with appropriate test intervals maximized therapeutic efficacy; as HPV vaccination rates increased, HPV-based screening approaches resulted in fewer unnecessary colposcopies than LBC approaches (HPV testing, 80% vaccine coverage: 44.1 [95% CI, 40-45.9] excess colposcopies; LBC testing, 80% vaccine coverage: 96.9 [95% CI, 96.8-97.0] excess colposcopies).Conclusions and relevanceIn this decision analytic model, the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening was dependent on the prevalence of cervical dysplasia and/or HPV infection or vaccination in a population as well as the sensitivity and specificity of various modalities. Although screening is lifesaving, overtesting or modalities inappropriate to the target population may cause significant harm, including overtreatment.

Project description: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.

Project description:Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is safe and effective in preventing cervical cancer in females. As HPV infections can also induce cancers of the anus, penis and oral cavity, male vaccination is also advocated, but systematic reviews on efficacy and safety in males are lacking.We performed a systematic review on the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of HPV vaccination in males of any age. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to April 2017.We identified 5196 articles and seven studies (four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three non-randomized studies) were included, comprising a total of 5294 participants. Vaccine efficacy against at least 6-month persisting anogenital HPV 16 infections was 46.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 28.6-60.8%), whereas efficacy against persisting oral infections was 88% (2-98%). A vaccine efficacy of 61.9% (21.4-82.8%) and 46.8% (-?20 to -77.9%) was observed against anal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and grade 3 lesions, respectively. No meaningful estimates were available on vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against penile intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3, and no data were identified for anal, penile or head and neck squamous cell cancer. In participants who were HPV-seronegative and PCR-negative at enrolment, efficacy against all outcomes was higher as compared to seropositive and/or PCR-positive individuals. Risk of bias was low in three RCTs and high in one, while the three non-randomized studies were at serious to critical risk of bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence quality was moderate to low for most outcomes.HPV vaccination in males is moderately effective against persistent anogenital HPV infection and high-grade anal intraepithelial lesions in studies where the population consists mainly of HPV-infected males. Vaccine effectiveness was high in study groups comprising HPV-naïve males. This supports a recommendation for vaccination of boys before the onset of sexual activity with the goal of establishing optimal vaccine-induced protection. Mathematical modelling studies will still be needed to assess the effects of adding males to existing HPV vaccination programs in females.Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration CRD42016038965 .