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 Although the risk of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is greatest in young women, women older than 25 years remain at risk. We present data from the VIVIANE study of the HPV ...16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in adult women after 7 years of follow-up. Methods In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, healthy women older than 25 years were enrolled (age stratified: 26–35 years, 36–45 years, and ≥46 years). Up to 15% in each age stratum had a history of HPV infection or disease. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive HPV 16/18 vaccine or aluminium hydroxide control, with an internet-based system. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or greater (CIN1+) associated with HPV 16/18. We did analyses in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy and total vaccinated cohort. Data for the combined primary endpoint in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy were considered significant when the lower limit of the 96·2% CI around the point estimate was greater than 30%. For all other endpoints and cohorts, data were considered significant when the lower limit of the 96·2% CI was greater than 0%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00294047. Findings The first participant was enrolled on Feb 16, 2006, and the last study visit took place on Jan 29, 2014. 4407 women were in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy (n=2209 vaccine, n=2198 control) and 5747 women in the total vaccinated cohort (n=2877 vaccine, n=2870 control). At month 84, in women seronegative for the corresponding HPV type in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy, vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection or CIN1+ associated with HPV 16/18 was significant in all age groups combined (90·5%, 96·2% CI 78·6–96·5). Vaccine efficacy against HPV 16/18-related cytological abnormalities (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) and CIN1+ was also significant. We also noted significant cross-protective efficacy against 6-month persistent infection with HPV 31 (65·8%, 96·2% CI 24·9–85·8) and HPV 45 (70·7%, 96·2% CI 34·2–88·4). In the total vaccinated cohort, vaccine efficacy against CIN1+ irrespective of HPV was significant (22·9%, 96·2% CI 4·8–37·7). Serious adverse events related to vaccination occurred in five (0·2%) of 2877 women in the vaccine group and eight (0·3%) of 2870 women in the control group. Interpretation In women older than 25 years, the HPV 16/18 vaccine continues to protect against infections, cytological abnormalities, and lesions associated with HPV 16/18 and CIN1+ irrespective of HPV type, and infection with non-vaccine types HPV 31 and HPV 45 over 7 years of follow-up. Funding GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.
Summary Background 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. Methods 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. Findings 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. Interpretation 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. Funding GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.
Abstract Background In women with sporadic recurrent angioedema with an unknown cause who are unresponsive to antihistamines and have normal C1 inhibitor activity and a negative family history of ...angioedema, it is unclear whether they have idiopathic angioedema or hereditary angioedema with normal C1 inhibitor, and what impact exogenous estrogens have on their angioedema. Methods A cohort of 147 women was analyzed for F12 exon 9 mutations and for the influence of oral contraceptives, hormonal replacement therapy, and pregnancy on their angioedema. Results A total of 142 women had idiopathic angioedema unresponsive to antihistamines. Five women had an F12 mutation and thereby hereditary angioedema with F12 mutations. Among the women with idiopathic angioedema, 63 had never taken estrogens. There was no estrogen impact in 42 women, a moderate impact in 15 women, and a severe impact in 22 women. The type and dose of estrogens did not differ in women with and without an estrogen impact. In 5 women, idiopathic angioedema disappeared after desogestrel use. Among the 5 women with hereditary angioedema with F12 mutations, angioedema symptoms occurred during 4 pregnancies, whereas no symptoms occurred during any of the 58 pregnancies in women with idiopathic angioedema. Conclusions Women with recurrent angioedema unresponsive to antihistamines may have idiopathic angioedema or, more rarely, hereditary angioedema with F12 mutations. Both conditions may be provoked or aggravated by exogenous estrogens. In idiopathic angioedema, treatment with progestins may be helpful.
Background Hereditary angioedema caused by mutations in the factor XII gene is a recently described disease entity that occurs mainly in women. It differs from hereditary angioedema caused by C1 ...inhibitor deficiency. Objective To assess the clinical symptoms, factors triggering acute attacks, and treatments of this disease. Methods Thirty-five female patients with hereditary angioedema and the factor XII mutations p.Thr309Lys and p.Thr309Arg who came from 13 unrelated families were studied. The observation period was 8.4 years on average (range, 2-26 years). Results Patients had on average 12.7 ± 7.9 angioedema attacks per year. Recurrent facial swellings occurred in all patients; skin swellings other than facial, abdominal pain attacks, tongue swellings, and laryngeal edema occurred less frequently. Some factors that triggered angioedema attacks were trauma, physical pressure, and emotional stress. Clinical symptoms started mainly after intake of oral contraceptives (17 women) or pregnancy (3 women). Exacerbation of the symptoms occurred after oral contraceptive use (8 women), pregnancy (7 women), hormone replacement therapy (3 women), intake of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (2 women), and an angiotensin 1 receptor blocker (1 woman). Effective treatments included C1 inhibitor concentrate for angioedema attacks (6 women) and, for prophylaxis, progesterone (8 women), danazol (2 women), and tranexamic acid (1 woman). No difference between mutation p.Thr309Arg and p.Thr309Lys was found. Conclusions Facial swelling is a cardinal symptom of this condition. Estrogens may have a great influence, but this influence is highly variable. Various treatment options are available.
PDF
