[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Protection against oncogenic non-vaccine types (cross-protection) offered by human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines may provide a significant medical benefit. Available clinical efficacy data suggest the two licensed vaccines (HPV-16/18 vaccine, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (GSK), and HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine, Merck & Co., Inc.) differ in terms of protection against oncogenic non-vaccine HPV types -31/45. The immune responses induced by the two vaccines against these two non-vaccine HPV types (cross-reactivity) was compared in an observer-blind study up to Month 24 (18 mo post-vaccination), in women HPV DNA-negative and seronegative prior to vaccination for the HPV type analyzed (HPV-010 [NCT00423046]). Geometric mean antibody titers (GMTs) measured by pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were similar between vaccines for HPV-31/45. Seropositivity rates for HPV-31 were also similar between vaccines; however, there was a trend for higher seropositivity with the HPV-16/18 vaccine (13.0-16.7%) versus the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (0.0-5.0%) for HPV-45 with PBNA, but not ELISA. HPV-31/45 cross-reactive memory B-cell responses were comparable between vaccines. Circulating antigen-specific CD4+ T-cell frequencies were higher for the HPV-16/18 vaccine than the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (HPV-31 [geometric mean ratio [GMR] =2.0; p=0.0002] and HPV-45 [GMR=2.6; p=0.0092]), as were the proportion of T-cell responders (HPV-31, p=0.0009; HPV-45, p=0.0793). In conclusion, immune response to oncogenic non-vaccine HPV types -31/45 was generally similar for both vaccines with the exception of T-cell response which was higher with the HPV-16/18 vaccine. Considering the differences in cross-protective efficacy between the two vaccines, the results might provide insights into the underlying mechanism(s) of protection.
Human vaccines 12/2011; 7(12):1359-73. · 3.14 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In this observer-blind study (NCT00423046), women (N=1,106), stratified by age (18-26, 27-35, 36-45 y), were randomized (1:1) to receive the HPV-16/18 vaccine (Cervarix®, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Months 0, 1, 6) or the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (Gardasil® Merck & Co., Inc., Months 0, 2, 6). Month 7 results were previously reported; we now report Month 24 results. In the according-to-protocol cohort for immunogenicity (seronegative and DNA-negative at baseline for HPV type analyzed), seropositivity rates of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) [pseudovirion-based neutralization assay] were, across all age strata, 100% (HPV-16/18 vaccine) and 97.5-100% (HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine) for HPV-16, and 99.0-100% (HPV-16/18 vaccine) and 72.3-84.4% (HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine) for HPV-18. Corresponding geometric mean titers (GMTs) were 2.4-5.8-fold higher for HPV-16 and 7.7-9.4-fold higher for HPV-18 with the HPV-16/18 vaccine versus the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine; HPV-16 and HPV-18 GMTs were significantly higher with the HPV-16/18 vaccine than the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (p< 0.0001) in the total vaccinated cohort (received ≥1 vaccine dose, irrespective of baseline sero/DNA-status). Similar results were obtained using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Positivity rates and GMTs of antigen-specific IgG antibodies in cervicovaginal secretions (ELISA) were not significantly different between vaccines. At Month 24, CD4⁺ T-cell responses for HPV-16 and HPV-18 were higher with the HPV-16/18 vaccine; memory B-cell response was higher for HPV-18 with the HPV-16/18 vaccine and similar between vaccines for HPV-16. Both vaccines were generally well tolerated. Although an immunological correlate of protection has not been defined, differences in the magnitude of immune response between vaccines may represent determinants of duration of protection.
Human vaccines 12/2011; 7(12):1343-58. · 3.14 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This observer-blind study compared the prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) and Gardasil (Merck), by assessing immunogenicity and safety through one month after completion of the three-dose vaccination course. Women (n = 1106) were stratified by age (18-26, 27-35, 36-45 years) and randomized (1:1) to receive Cervarix (Months 0, 1, 6) or Gardasil (Months 0, 2, 6). At Month 7 after first vaccination, all women in the according-to-protocol cohort who were seronegative/DNA negative before vaccination for the HPV type analyzed had seroconverted for HPV-16 and HPV-18 serum neutralizing antibodies, as measured by pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA), except for two women aged 27-35 years in the Gardasil group who did not seroconvert for HPV-18 (98%). Geometric mean titers of serum neutralizing antibodies ranged from 2.3-4.8-fold higher for HPV-16 and 6.8-9.1-fold higher for HPV-18 after vaccination with Cervarix compared with Gardasil, across all age strata. In the total vaccinated cohort (all women who received at least one vaccine dose, regardless of their serological and DNA status prior to vaccination), Cervarix induced significantly higher serum neutralizing antibody titers in all age strata (p < 0.0001). Positivity rates for anti-HPV-16 and -18 neutralizing antibodies in cervicovaginal secretions and circulating HPV-16 and -18 specific memory B-cell frequencies were also higher after vaccination with Cervarix compared with Gardasil. Both vaccines were generally well tolerated. The incidence of unsolicited adverse events was comparable between vaccinated groups. The incidence of solicited symptoms was generally higher after Cervarix, injection site reactions being most common. However, compliance rates with the three-dose schedules were similarly high (>or= 84%) for both vaccines. Although the importance of differences in magnitude of immune response between these vaccines is unknown, they may represent determinants of duration of protection against HPV-16/18. Long-term studies evaluating duration of efficacy after vaccination are needed for both vaccines.
Human vaccines 11/2009; 5(10):705-19. · 3.14 Impact Factor