Explore the vast range of titles available.

A randomised trial designed to compare three and two doses of quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in adolescent girls in India was converted to a cohort study after suspension of HPV vaccination in trials by the Indian Government. In this Article, the revised aim of the cohort study was to compare vaccine efficacy of single dose to that of three and two doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection at 10 years post vaccination. In the randomised trial, unmarried girls aged 10–18 years were recruited from nine centres across India and randomly assigned to either two doses or three doses of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil [Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA]; 0·5 mL administered intramuscularly). After suspension of recruitment and vaccination, the study became a longitudinal, prospective cohort study by default, and participants were allocated to four cohorts on the basis of the number vaccine doses received per protocol: the two-dose cohort (received vaccine on days 1 and 180 or later), three-dose cohort (days 1, 60, and 180 or later), two-dose default cohort (days 1 and 60 or later), and the single-dose default cohort. Participants were followed up yearly. Cervical specimens were collected from participants 18 months after marriage or 6 months after first childbirth, whichever was earlier, to assess incident and persistent HPV infections. Married participants were screened for cervical cancer as they reached 25 years of age. Unvaccinated women age-matched to the married vaccinated participants were recruited to serve as controls. Vaccine efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infections (the primary endpoint) was analysed for single-dose recipients and compared with that in two-dose and three-dose recipients after adjusting for imbalance in the distribution of potential confounders between the unvaccinated and vaccinated cohorts. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN98283094, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00923702. Vaccinated participants were recruited between Sept 1, 2009, and April 8, 2010 (date of vaccination suspension), and followed up over a median duration of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2–9·6). 4348 participants had three doses, 4980 had two doses (0 and 6 months), and 4949 had a single dose. Vaccine efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95·4% (95% CI 85·0–99·9) in the single-dose default cohort (2135 women assessed), 93·1% (77·3–99·8) in the two-dose cohort (1452 women assessed), and 93·3% (77·5–99·7) in three-dose recipients (1460 women assessed). A single dose of HPV vaccine provides similar protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and 18, the genotypes responsible for nearly 70% of cervical cancers, to that provided by two or three doses. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Multidose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is efficacious, yet the vaccine has been underused globally. Emerging data suggest that a single dose may provide protection. Whether a single dose of HPV vaccine would provide similar protection to two doses is uncertain. In this trial, we assessed whether one dose of an HPV vaccine was noninferior to two doses. Girls 12 to 16 years of age were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, to receive one or two doses of a bivalent HPV vaccine or one or two doses of a nonavalent HPV vaccine. The primary end point was new HPV type 16 or 18 infection occurring from month 12 to month 60 and persisting for at least 6 months. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 1.25 infections per 100 participants. We also assessed vaccine effectiveness by comparing HPV16 or HPV18 infection among the trial participants with that among girls and women enrolled in a nonrandomized survey. A total of 20,330 participants were enrolled and underwent randomization, and 3005 unvaccinated participants were enrolled in the survey. The noninferiority analysis showed that one vaccine dose was noninferior to two doses in preventing HPV16 or HPV18 infection. The rate difference between one and two doses of the bivalent vaccine was -0.13 infections per 100 participants (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.45 to 0.15; P<0.001 for noninferiority), and the difference between one and two doses of the nonavalent vaccine was 0.21 infections per 100 participants (95% CI, -0.09 to 0.51; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The vaccine effectiveness was at least 97% in each of the four trial groups. No safety concerns were identified. One dose of either a bivalent or nonavalent HPV vaccine provided protection against HPV16 or HPV18 infection and was not inferior to two doses. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ESCUDDO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03180034.).

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. 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. 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. 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. 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).

In this large, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, a quadrivalent vaccine (including human papillomavirus types 6, 11, 16 and 18) given at day 1, month 2, and month 6 was associated with a significant reduction in the occurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. No beneficial effect was observed on prevalent lesions. The prevention benefit for incident lesions associated with HPV-16 and HPV-18 appears to increase with time. A quadrivalent vaccine (including human papillomavirus types 6, 11, 16 and 18) was associated with a significant reduction in the occurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. The prevention benefit for incident lesions associated with HPV-16 and HPV-18 appears to increase with time. Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women and the leading cause of cancer-related death in many developing countries. 1 Although well-organized programs for Papanicolaou screening have led to a significant decline in mortality from cervical cancer in developed countries, 1 such programs are costly 2 and have not been effectively implemented in most developing countries. 3 Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) cause virtually all cervical cancers, with HPV types 16 (HPV-16) and 18 (HPV-18) responsible for approximately 70%. 4 When phase 3 trials of prophylactic HPV vaccines were in the planning stages, the vaccine advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended . . .

The present study was aimed at showing the importance of HPV DNA status and the clinical history of the patients required by the cytologist for accurate reporting. A total of 1250 symptomatic women who attended the gynaecology outpatient department of the Mahavir Cancer Sansthan and Nalanda Medical College, Patna, for pap smear examinations were screened and recruited for the study. Due to highly clinical symptoms out of the negative with inflammatory smears reported, one hundred and ten patients were randomly advised for biopsy and HPV 16/18 DNA analysis by a gynaecologist to correlate negative smears included in the study. Pap smear reports revealed that 1178 (94.24%) were negative for intraepithelial lesions (NILM) with inflammatory smears, 23 (1.84%) smears showed low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL), 12 (0.96%) smears showed high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions, and 37 (2.96%) smears showed an atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance (ASC-US). A biopsy of 110 out of 1178 (NILM) patients revealed that 15 (13.63%) women had cervical cancer, 29 women had CIN I, 17 women had CIN II + CIN III, 35 women had benign cervical changes, and 14 women had haemorrhages. On the other hand, HPV 16/18 DNA was detected as positive in 87 out of 110. The high positivity of HPV in biopsied cases where frank cervical cancer and at-risk cancer were also observed in the negative smear-screened patients reveals that the HPV status and clinical history of the patients will be quite helpful to the cytologist for accurate reporting, and suggests that a negative HPV DNA result may be a stronger predictor of cervical cancer risk than a negative Pap test.

We report the rationale, design, methods and details of participation of a community-based, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of an HPV 16 and 18 vaccine conducted in two provinces of Costa Rica to investigate the efficacy and population impact of the vaccine in the prevention of cervical cancer precursors. More than 24,000 women between 18 and 25 years of age were invited to participate and pre-screened for eligibility, with recruitment of 7466 women (30% of those pre-screened, 59% of those eligible) who were randomized to receive 3 doses of the HPV vaccine or hepatitis A vaccine as control. A complex protocol of data and specimen collection was applied, including an interview, pelvic exam for sexually active women, blood for serology and cell-mediated immunity, cervical secretions for local immunity and cells for HPV, Chlamydia trachomatis and gonorrhea testing. Eighty percent of the women received three doses, 12.4% two doses and 7.4% one dose. At visits, compliance with data and specimen collection was close to 100%. Baseline characteristics and age-specific prevalence of HPV and cervical neoplasia are reported. Overall prevalence of HPV was high (50%), with 8.3% of women having HPV 16 and 3.2% HPV 18. LSIL was detected in 12.7% of women at baseline and HSIL in 1.9%. Prevalence of Chlamydia was 14.2%. There was very good agreement in HPV detection between clinician-collected and self- collected specimens (89.4% agreement for all types, kappa 0.59). Follow up will continue with yearly or more frequent examinations for at least 4 years for each participant.

Using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening increases detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplastic lesions and invasive cancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ [CIN2+]) compared to cytology, but no evaluation has been conducted in a population previously offered HPV vaccination. We aimed to assess colposcopy referral and CIN2+ detection rates for HPV-screened versus cytology-screened women in Australia's HPV-vaccinated population (by 2014, resident women ≤33 years had been age-eligible for HPV vaccination, with 3-dose uptake across age cohorts being about 50%-77%). Compass is an open-label randomised trial of 5-yearly HPV screening versus 2.5-yearly liquid-based cytology (LBC) screening. In the first phase, consenting women aged 25-64 years presenting for routine screening at 47 primary practices in Victoria, Australia, provided a cervical sample and were randomised at a central laboratory at a 1:2:2 allocation to (i) image-read LBC screening with HPV triage of low-grade cytology ('LBC screening'), (ii) HPV screening with those HPV16/18 positive referred to colposcopy and with LBC triage for other oncogenic (OHR) types ('HPV+LBC triage'), or (iii) HPV screening with those HPV16/18 positive referred to colposcopy and with dual-stained cytology triage for OHR types ('HPV+DS triage'). A total of 5,006 eligible women were recruited from 29 October 2013 to 7 November 2014 (recruitment rate 58%); of these, 22% were in the group age-eligible for vaccination. Data on 4,995 participants were analysed after 11 withdrawals; 998 were assigned to, and 995 analysed (99.7%) in, the LBC-screened group; 1,996 assigned to and 1,992 analysed (99.8%) in the HPV+LBC triage group; and 2,012 assigned to and 2,008 analysed (99.8%) in the HPV+DS triage group. No serious trial-related adverse events were reported. The main outcomes were colposcopy referral and detected CIN2+ rates at baseline screening, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis after follow-up of the subgroup of triage-negative women in each arm referred to 12 months of surveillance, and after a further 6 months of follow-up for histological outcomes (dataset closed 31 August 2016). Analysis was adjusted for whether women had been age-eligible for HPV vaccination or not. For the LBC-screened group, the overall referral and detected CIN2+ rates were 27/995 (2.7% [95% CI 1.8%-3.9%]) and 1/995 (0.1% [95% CI 0.0%-0.6%]), respectively; for HPV+LBC triage, these were 75/1,992 (3.8% [95% CI 3.0%-4.7%]) and 20/1,992 (1.0% [95% CI 0.6%-1.5%]); and for HPV+DS triage, these were 79/2,008 (3.9% [95% CI 3.1%-4.9%]) and 24/2,008 (1.2% [95% CI 0.8%-1.6%]) (p = 0.09 for difference in referral rate in LBC versus all HPV-screened women; p = 0.003 for difference in CIN2+ detection rate in LBC versus all HPV-screened women, with p = 0.62 between HPV screening groups). Limitations include that the study population involved a relatively low risk group in a previously well-screened and treated population, that individual women's vaccination status was unknown, and that long-term follow-up data on disease detection in screen-negative women are not yet available. In this study, primary HPV screening was associated with significantly increased detection of high-grade precancerous cervical lesions compared to cytology, in a population where high vaccine uptake was reported in women aged 33 years or younger who were offered vaccination. It had been predicted that increased disease detection might be associated with a transient increase in colposcopy referral rates in the first round of HPV screening, possibly dampened by HPV vaccine effect; in this study, although the point estimates for referral rates in women in each HPV-screened group were 41%-44% higher than in cytology-screened women, the difference in referral rate between cytology- and HPV-screened women was not significant. These findings provide initial support for the implementation of primary HPV screening in vaccinated populations. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001207707.

Background In general, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines have demonstrated efficacy in young women worldwide, but there is limited evidence on the efficacy of the quadrivalent HPV6/11/16/18 vaccine in adult women and no evidence of its effectiveness in Japanese adult women in particular. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the quadrivalent HPV6/11/16/18 vaccine for persistent HPV16/18 infection in Japanese women aged 27–45 years. Methods This is an interventional, nonrandomized, non-double-blind prospective cohort study designed to compare the rates of persistent HPV16/18 infection between the vaccinated arm and unvaccinated arm. The subjects will consist of all women aged 27–45 years who have normal cytology results confirmed by cervical cancer screening from May 2019 to March 2021. The follow-up time is two years. The subjects will be divided into two groups: the vaccinated group and the unvaccinated group. The study will need to enroll 600 vaccinated participants (experimental arm) and 2200 unvaccinated participants (control arm). Discussion The findings of this trial (HAKUOH study) might provide the first local evidence on the subject and be significantly useful not only to medical academia but also to the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The findings could contribute to public health improvement by providing local supportive knowledge on the prevention of HPV infection through HPV vaccination in young adult women in Japan, where active recommendations have been suspended for a long time due to adverse effects. Trial registration Trial registration number: NCT04022148 . Registration began on December 1, 2019.

Objectives To provide an early risk assessment of extending screening intervals beyond five years for a human papillomavirus (HPV) based cervical screening programme in the Netherlands.Design 14 year follow-up of a population based randomised cohort from the POBASCAM randomised trial. Setting Organised cervical screening in the Netherlands, based on a programme of three screening rounds (each round done every five years).Participants 43 339 women aged 29-61 years with a negative HPV and/or negative cytology test participating in the POBASCAM trial. Interventions Women randomly assigned to HPV and cytology co-testing (intervention) or cytology testing only (control), and managed accordingly.Main outcome measures Cumulative incidence of cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). Associations with age were expressed as incidence rate ratios. In HPV positive women, reductions in CIN3+ incidence after negative cytology, HPV type 16/18 genotyping, and/or repeat cytology were estimated.Results The cumulative incidence of cervical cancer (0.09%) and CIN3+ (0.56%) among HPV negative women in the intervention group after three rounds of screening were similar to the cumulative among women with negative cytology in the control group after two rounds (0.09% and 0.69%, respectively). Cervical cancer and CIN3+ risk ratios were 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 2.31, P=0.95) and 0.82 (0.62 to 1.09, P=0.17), respectively. CIN3+ incidence was 72.2% (95% confidence interval 61.6% to 79.9%, P<0.001) lower among HPV negative women aged at least 40 years than among younger women. No significant association between cervical cancer incidence and age could be demonstrated. CIN3+ incidence among HPV positive women with negative cytology, HPV 16/18 genotyping, and/or repeat cytology was 10.4 (95% confidence interval 5.9 to 18.4) times higher than among HPV negative women.Conclusions Long term incidences of cervical cancer and CIN3+ were low among HPV negative women in this study cohort, and supports an extension of the cervical screening interval beyond five years for women aged 40 years and older. HPV positive women with subsequent negative cytology, HPV16/18 genotyping, and/or repeat cytology have at least a fivefold higher risk of CIN3+ than HPV negative women, indicating that HPV based programmes with long intervals (>five years) should be implemented with risk stratification.Trial registration POBASCAM trial number ISRCTN20781131.

Background Self-sampling for HPV testing, as an alternative to the conventional speculum based sampling, is highly acceptable to women of screening ages. The aim of this study was to describe older women’s (60 to 75 years) experiences of self-sampling. Methods In Sweden a descriptive study with quantitative and qualitative methods was designed to collect data from a survey of women who participated in self-sampling for HPV testing. Individual interviews were done with women who tested positive in the first self-sampling, and were either negative in their second HPV test or were positive in their second HPV test, but without precancerous lesions or cancer. Results Of 893 eligible women, 868 (97.2%) answered the survey. Among the surveyed women, 49.2% reported it was very easy to perform self-sampling, 46.8% answered it was easy and 2.0% answered it was not easy. A majority (58.9%) answered that they prefer self-sampling, 16.5% that they prefer sample collection by a healthcare provider, 23.7% did not have any preference and 0.9% did not answer the question. In the interviews, 13 of 16 invited women participated. Most of them reported that they prefer self-sampling because it was easy to perform, less embarrassing and less time consuming than a visit to a clinic. The majority of women reported that they were not worried when informed about having an HPV positive test. Overall, participating women with better knowledge about the significance of an HPV infection were more worried about having a positive HPV test. Conclusion Cervical cancer remains a highly preventable disease through screening and early treatment. Our results indicated that vaginal self-sampling for HPV testing was a well-accepted method for cervical cancer prevention in this group of older women. Trial registration https://www.researchweb.org/is/en/fouckfuu/project/272587 . Registered 24 June 2019-retrospectively registered. www.researchweb.org