Summary Background 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). Methods 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. Findings 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. Interpretation 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. Funding GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.
Summary Background 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). Methods 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. Findings 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). Interpretation 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. Funding GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.
Summary Background The aim of this interim analysis of a large, international phase III study was to assess the efficacy of an AS04 adjuvanted L1 virus-like-particle prophylactic candidate vaccine ...against infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 in young women. Methods 18 644 women aged 15–25 years were randomly assigned to receive either HPV16/18 vaccine (n=9319) or hepatitis A vaccine (n=9325) at 0, 1, and 6 months. Of these women, 88 were excluded because of high-grade cytology and 31 for missing cytology results. Thus, 9258 women received the HPV16/18 vaccine and 9267 received the control vaccine in the total vaccinated cohort for efficacy, which included women who had prevalent oncogenic HPV infections, often with several HPV types, as well as low-grade cytological abnormalities at study entry and who received at least one vaccine dose. We assessed cervical cytology and subsequent biopsy for 14 oncogenic HPV types by PCR. The primary endpoint—vaccine efficacy against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ associated with HPV16 or HPV18—was assessed in women who were seronegative and DNA negative for the corresponding vaccine type at baseline (month 0) and allowed inclusion of lesions with several oncogenic HPV types. This interim event-defined analysis was triggered when at least 23 cases of CIN2+ with HPV16 or HPV18 DNA in the lesion were detected in the total vaccinated cohort for efficacy. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry, number NCT00122681. Findings Mean length of follow-up for women in the primary analysis for efficacy at the time of the interim analysis was 14·8 (SD 4·9) months. Two cases of CIN2+ associated with HPV16 or HPV18 DNA were seen in the HPV16/18 vaccine group; 21 were recorded in the control group. Of the 23 cases, 14 (two in the HPV16/18 vaccine group, 12 in the control group) contained several oncogenic HPV types. Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ containing HPV16/18 DNA was 90·4% (97·9% CI 53·4–99·3; p<0·0001). No clinically meaningful differences were noted in safety outcomes between the study groups. Interpretation The adjuvanted HPV16/18 vaccine showed prophylactic efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV16 or HPV18 and thus could be used for cervical cancer prevention.
A ring-shaped, contraceptive vaginal system designed to last 1 year (13 cycles) delivers an average of 0·15 mg segesterone acetate and 0·013 mg ethinylestradiol per day. We evaluated the efficacy of ...this contraceptive vaginal system and return to menses or pregnancy after use.
In two identically designed, multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 trials (one at 15 US academic and community sites and one at 12 US and international academic and community sites), participants followed a 21-days-in, 7-days-out segesterone acetate and ethinylestradiol contraceptive vaginal system schedule for up to 13 cycles. Participants were healthy, sexually active, non-pregnant, non-sterilised women aged 18–40 years. Women were cautioned that any removals during the 21 days of cyclic use should not exceed 2 h, and used daily paper diaries to record vaginal system use. Consistent with regulatory requirements for contraceptives, we calculated the Pearl Index for women aged 35 years and younger, excluding adjunctive contraception cycles, as the primary efficacy outcome measure. We also did intention-to-treat Kaplan-Meier life table analyses and followed up women who did not use hormonal contraceptives or desired pregnancy after study completion for 6 months for return to menses or pregnancy. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00455156 and NCT00263341.
Between Dec 19, 2006, and Oct 9, 2009, at the 15 US sites, and between Nov 1, 2006, and July 2, 2009, at the 12 US and international sites we enrolled 2278 women. Our overall efficacy analysis included 2265 participants (1130 in the US study and 1135 in the international study) and 1303 (57·5%) participants completed up to 13 cycles. The Pearl Index for the primary efficacy group was 2·98 (95% CI 2·13–4·06) per 100 woman-years, and was well within the range indicative of efficacy for a contraceptive under a woman's control. The Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed the contraceptive vaginal system was 97·5% effective, which provided further evidence of efficacy. Pregnancy occurrence was similar across cycles. All 290 follow-up participants reported return to menses or became pregnant (24 63% of 38 women who desired pregnancy) within 6 months.
The segesterone acetate and ethinylestradiol contraceptive vaginal system is an effective contraceptive for 13 consecutive cycles of use. This new product adds to the contraceptive method mix and the 1-year duration of use means that women do not need to return to the clinic or pharmacy for refills every few months.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health, the US Agency for International Development, and the WHO Reproductive Health Research Department.
Background: This study was performed to assess spermatogenesis suppression and safety of a new combination of an etonogestrel (ENG) implant combined with testosterone undecanoate (TU) injections for ...male contraception. This is the first large placebo-controlled study for male hormonal contraception.
Design and Study Subjects: In this double-blind, multicenter study, we randomly assigned 354 healthy men to receive either a low- or high-release ENG implant sc combined with im TU injections (750 mg every 10 or 12 wk or 1000 mg every 12 wk) or placebo implant and injections. Treatment duration was 42 or 44 wk and posttreatment follow-up at least 24 wk.
Results: Overall, spermatogenesis was suppressed to 1 million/ml or less at wk 16 in 89% of men, with approximately 94% in two high-release ENG groups. Suppression was maintained up to the end of the treatment period in 91% of men. For all men who completed the treatment period, 3% never achieved 1 million/ml or less. Median recovery time to a sperm concentration above 20 million/ml was 15 wk (mean 17 wk, 95% confidence interval 16–18 wk). Treatment was well tolerated. As compared with the placebo group, more men in the active treatment groups reported adverse events such as weight gain, mood changes, acne, sweating, or libido change. For both spermatogenesis suppression and safety, differences were small between the active treatment groups.
Conclusions: The combination of an ENG implant with TU injections is a well-tolerated male hormonal method, providing effective and reversible suppression of spermatogenesis. Although the results are good, there is still room for improvement, possibly by adjusting the dose regimen or changing the mode of application.
PDF
