Explore the vast range of titles available.

Despite preventive vaccines for oncogenic human papillomaviruses (HPVs), cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is common, and current treatments are ablative and can lead to long-term reproductive morbidity. We assessed whether VGX-3100, synthetic plasmids targeting HPV-16 and HPV-18 E6 and E7 proteins, delivered by electroporation, would cause histopathological regression in women with CIN2/3. Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of VGX-3100 were assessed in CIN2/3 associated with HPV-16 and HPV-18, in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b study. Patients from 36 academic and private gynaecology practices in seven countries were randomised (3:1) to receive 6 mg VGX-3100 or placebo (1 mL), given intramuscularly at 0, 4, and 12 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by age (<25 vs ≥25 years) and CIN2 versus CIN3 by computer-generated allocation sequence (block size 4). Funder and site personnel, participants, and pathologists were masked to treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was regression to CIN1 or normal pathology 36 weeks after the first dose. Per-protocol and modified intention-to-treat analyses were based on patients receiving three doses without protocol violations, and on patients receiving at least one dose, respectively. The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01304524) and EudraCT (number 2012-001334-33). Between Oct 19, 2011, and July 30, 2013, 167 patients received either VGX-3100 (n=125) or placebo (n=42). In the per-protocol analysis 53 (49·5%) of 107 VGX-3100 recipients and 11 (30·6%) of 36 placebo recipients had histopathological regression (percentage point difference 19·0 [95% CI 1·4–36·6]; p=0·034). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis 55 (48·2%) of 114 VGX-3100 recipients and 12 (30·0%) of 40 placebo recipients had histopathological regression (percentage point difference 18·2 [95% CI 1·3–34·4]; p=0·034). Injection-site reactions occurred in most patients, but only erythema was significantly more common in the VGX-3100 group (98/125, 78·4%) than in the placebo group (24/42, 57·1%; percentage point difference 21·3 [95% CI 5·3–37·8]; p=0·007). VGX-3100 is the first therapeutic vaccine to show efficacy against CIN2/3 associated with HPV-16 and HPV-18. VGX-3100 could present a non-surgical therapeutic option for CIN2/3, changing the treatment outlook for this common disease. Inovio Pharmaceuticals.

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). 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. 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. 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. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

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). 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. 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). 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. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

Although adolescent girls are the main population for prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, adult women who remain at risk of cervical cancer can also be vaccinated. We report data from the interim analysis of the ongoing VIVIANE study, the aim of which is to assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the HPV 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in adult women. In this phase 3, multinational, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned healthy women older than 25 years to the HPV 16/18 vaccine or control (1:1), via an internet-based system with an algorithm process that accounted for region, age stratum, baseline HPV DNA status, HPV 16/18 serostatus, and cytology. Enrolment was age-stratified, with about 45% of participants in each of the 26–35 and 36–45 years age strata and 10% in the 46 years and older stratum. Up to 15% of women in each age stratum could have a history of HPV infection or disease. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or higher (CIN1+) associated with HPV 16/18. The primary analysis was done in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy, which consists of women who received all three vaccine or control doses, had negative or low-grade cytology at baseline, and had no history of HPV disease. Secondary analyses included vaccine efficacy against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types. Mean follow-up time was 40·3 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00294047. The first participant was enrolled on Feb 16, 2006, and the last study visit for the present analysis took place on Dec 10, 2010; 5752 women were included in the total vaccinated cohort (n=2881 vaccine, n=2871 control), and 4505 in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy (n=2264 vaccine, n=2241 control). Vaccine efficacy against HPV 16/18-related 6-month persistent infection or CIN1+ was significant in all age groups combined (81·1%, 97·7% CI 52·1–94·0), in the 26–35 years age group (83·5%, 45·0–96·8), and in the 36–45 years age group (77·2%, 2·8–96·9); no cases were seen in women aged 46 years and older. Vaccine efficacy against atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or greater associated with HPV 16/18 was also significant. We also noted significant cross-protective vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection with HPV 31 (79·1%, 97·7% CI 27·6–95·9) and HPV 45 (76·9%, 18·5–95·6]) Serious adverse events occurred in 285 (10%) of 2881 women in the vaccine group and 267 (9%) of 2871 in the control group; five (<1%) and eight (<1%) of these events, respectively, were believed to be related to vaccination. In women older than 25 years, the HPV 16/18 vaccine is efficacious against infections and cervical abnormalities associated with the vaccine types, as well as infections with the non-vaccine HPV types 31 and 45. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

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 . . .

Concerns about vaccine safety are an important reason for vaccine hesitancy, however, limited information is available on whether common adverse reactions following vaccination affect the immune response. Data from three clinical trials of recombinant vaccines were used in this post hoc analysis to assess the correlation between inflammation-related solicited adverse reactions (ISARs, including local pain, redness, swelling or induration and systematic fever) and immune responses after vaccination. In the phase III trial of the bivalent HPV-16/18 vaccine (Cecolin®), the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for IgG anti-HPV-16 and -18 (P<0.001) were significantly higher in participants with any ISAR following vaccination than in those without an ISAR. Local pain, induration, swelling and systemic fever were significantly correlated with higher GMCs for IgG anti-HPV-16 and/or anti-HPV-18, respectively. Furthermore, the analyses of the immunogenicity bridging study of Cecolin® and the phase III trial of a hepatitis E vaccine yielded similar results. Based on these results, we built a scoring model to quantify the inflammation reactions and found that the high score of ISAR indicates the strong vaccine-induced antibody level. In conclusion, this study suggests inflammation-related adverse reactions following vaccination potentially indicate a stronger immune response.

The ATHENA study was designed to assess the performance of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and HPV16 or HPV18 genotyping compared with liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening in a large US population aged 21 years and older. We did a subanalysis of this population to compare the screening performance of the cobas HPV test versus liquid-based cytology in women aged 25 years and older, and assess management strategies for HPV-positive women. Women aged 25 years or older who were attending routine cervical screening were enrolled from 61 clinical centres in 23 US states. Cervical specimens were obtained for liquid-based cytology and HPV DNA testing with two first-generation assays (Amplicor HPV test and Linear Array HPV genotyping test) and the second-generation cobas HPV test (with individual HPV16 and HPV18 detection). Colposcopy and diagnostic biopsies were done on women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or worse cytology, those who tested positive with either first-generation HPV test, and a random sample of women who tested negative for HPV and cytology. All women not selected for colposcopy received their results and exited the study. Participants and colposcopists were masked to cytology and HPV test results until the colposcopy visit was completed. The primary endpoint for this substudy was histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) or worse. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00709891; the study is in the follow-up phase, which is due to be completed in December, 2012. From May 27, 2008, to Aug 27, 2009, 47 208 women were enrolled, of whom 41 955 met our eligibility criteria. Valid cobas HPV and liquid-based cytology test results were available for 40 901 women (97%), who were included in this analysis. Of these, 4275 women (10%) tested cobas HPV positive and 2617 (6%) had abnormal cytology. 431 women were diagnosed with CIN2 or worse and 274 with CIN3 or worse. In women who had colposcopy, the cobas HPV test was more sensitive than liquid-based cytology for detection of CIN3 or worse (252/274 [92·0%, 95% CI 88·1–94·6] vs 146/274 [53·3%, 95% CI 47·4–59·1]; difference 38·7%, 95% CI 31·9–45·5; p<0·0001). Addition of liquid-based cytology to HPV testing increased sensitivity for CIN3 or worse to 96·7% (265/274, 95% CI 93·9–98·3), but increased the number of screen positives by 35·2% (5783/40 901 vs 4275/40 901) compared with HPV testing alone. As a triage test to identify CIN3 or worse in HPV-positive women, detection of HPV16, HPV18, or both alone was equivalent to detection of ASC-US or worse alone in terms of sensitivity (150/252 [59·5%] vs 133/252 [52·8%]; p=0·11) and positive predictive value (PPV) (150/966 [15·5%] vs 133/940 [14·1%]; p=0·20). Among HPV-positive women, detection of HPV16, HPV18, or both or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse cytology had better sensitivity (182/252 [72·2%]; p<0·0001) and similar PPV (182/1314 [13·9%]; p=0·70) for detection of CIN3 or worse than ASC-US or worse cytology alone. Furthermore, detection of HPV16, HPV18, or both or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse cytology had higher sensitivity (165/252 [65·5%]; p=0·0011) and PPV (165/1013 [16·3%]; p=0·031) for detection of CIN3 or worse than ASC-US or worse cytology alone. HPV testing with separate HPV16 and HPV18 detection could provide an alternative, more sensitive, and efficient strategy for cervical cancer screening than do methods based solely on cytology. Roche Molecular Systems.

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.

Background. We compared the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of Cervarix or Gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines in adults infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Methods. This was a double-blind, controlled trial randomizing HIV-positive adults to receive 3 doses of Cervarix or Gardasil at 0, 1.5, and 6 months. Immunogenicity was evaluated for up to 12 months. Neutralizing anti-HPV-16/18 antibodies were measured by pseudovirion-based neutralization assay. Laboratory tests and diary cards were used for safety assessment. The HPV-DNA status of the participants was determined before and after immunization. Results. Ninety-two participants were included in the study. Anti-HPV-18 antibody titers were higher in the Cervarix group compared with the Gardasil group at 7 and 12 months. No significant differences in anti-HPV-16 antibody titers were found among vaccine groups. Among Cervarix vaccinees, women had higher anti-HPV-16/18 antibody titers compared to men. No sex-specific differences in antibody titers were found in the Gardasil group. Mild injection site reactions were more common in the Cervarix group than in the Gardasil group (91.1% vs 69.6%; P = .02). No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions. Both vaccines were immunogenic and well tolerated. Compared with Gardasil, Cervarix induced superior vaccine responses among HIV-infected women, whereas in HIV-infected men the difference in immunogenicity was less pronounced.

The objective of the present study is to assess the performance of a high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) DNA test with individual HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping as a method for primary cervical cancer screening compared with liquid-based cytology (LBC) in a population of Greek women taking part in routine cervical cancer screening. The study, conducted by the \"HEllenic Real life Multicentric cErvical Screening\" (HERMES) study group, involved the recruitment of 4,009 women, aged 25-55, who took part in routine cervical screening at nine Gynecology Departments in Greece. At first visit cervical specimens were collected for LBC and HPV testing using the Roche Cobas 4800 system. Women found positive for either cytology or HPV were referred for colposcopy, whereas women negative for both tests will be retested after three years. The study is ongoing and the results of the first screening round are reported herein. Valid results for cytology and HPV testing were obtained for 3,993 women. The overall prevalence of HR-HPV was 12.7%, of HPV-16 2.7% and of HPV-18 1.4%. Of those referred for colposcopy, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) was detected in 41 women (1.07%). At the threshold of CIN2+, cytology [atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or worse] and HPV testing showed a sensitivity of 53.7% and 100% respectively, without change between age groups. Cytology and HPV testing showed specificity of 96.8% and 90.3% respectively, which was increased in older women (≥30) in comparison to younger ones (25-29). Genotyping for HPV16/18 had similar accuracy to cytology for the detection of CIN2+ (sensitivity: 58.5%; specificity 97.5%) as well as for triage to colposcopy (sensitivity: 58.5% vs 53.7% for cytology). HPV testing has much better sensitivity than cytology to identify high-grade cervical lesions with slightly lower specificity. HPV testing with individual HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping could represent a more accurate methodology for primary cervical cancer screening in comparison to liquid-based cytology, especially in older women.