Jesper Bonde

Comparison of the Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of Cervarix and Gardasil Human Papillomavirus Vaccines in HIV-Infected Adults: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

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.

Disagreement between human papillomavirus assays: an unexpected challenge for the choice of an assay in primary cervical screening.

We aimed to determine the disagreement in primary cervical screening between four human papillomavirus assays: Hybrid Capture 2, cobas, CLART, and APTIMA. Material from 5,064 SurePath samples of women participating in routine cervical screening in Copenhagen, Denmark, was tested with the four assays. Positive agreement between the assays was measured as the conditional probability that the results of all compared assays were positive given that at least one assay returned a positive result. Of all 5,064 samples, 1,679 (33.2%) tested positive on at least one of the assays. Among these, 41% tested positive on all four. Agreement was lower in women aged ≥30 years (30%, vs. 49% at <30 years), in primary screening samples (29%, vs. 38% in follow-up samples), and in women with concurrent normal cytology (22%, vs. 68% with abnormal cytology). Among primary screening samples from women aged 30–65 years (n = 2,881), 23% tested positive on at least one assay, and 42 to 58% of these showed positive agreement on any compared pair of the assays. While 4% of primary screening samples showed abnormal cytology, 6 to 10% were discordant on any pair of assays. A literature review corroborated our findings of considerable disagreement between human papillomavirus assays. This suggested that the extent of disagreement in primary screening is neither population- nor storage media-specific, leaving assay design differences as the most probable cause. The substantially different selection of women testing positive on the various human papillomavirus assays represents an unexpected challenge for the choice of an assay in primary cervical screening, and for follow up of in particular HPV positive/cytology normal women.

Cervical cancer screening at crossroads

Cervical screening has been one of the most successful public health prevention programmes. For 50 years, cytology formed the basis for screening, and detected cervical intraepithelial lesions (CIN) were treated surgically to prevent progression to cancer. In a high‐risk country as Denmark, screening decreased the incidence of cervical cancer from 34 to 11 per 100 000, age‐standardized rate (World Standard Population). Screening is, however, also expensive; Denmark (population: 5.6 million) undertakes close to half a million tests per year, and has 6–8 CIN‐treated women for each prevented cancer case. The discovery of human papillomavirus (HPV) as the cause of cervical cancer dramatically changed perspectives for disease control. Screening with HPV testing was launched around 1990, and preventive HPV vaccination was licensed in 2006. Long‐term randomized controlled trials (RCT) demonstrated that HPV testing provides better protection against cervical cancer than cytology, but it requires extra repeated testing. HPV vaccination RCTs, furthermore, have proved that HPV vaccination protects against vaccine‐type high‐grade CIN in women vaccinated prior to sexual activity, but less so in women vaccinated later. The challenge now is therefore to find an algorithm for screening of a heterogeneous population including non‐vaccinated women; women vaccinated prior to start of sexual activity; and women vaccinated later.

Condom use in prevention of Human Papillomavirus infections and cervical neoplasia: systematic review of longitudinal studies

Objectives Based on cross-sectional studies, the data on protection from Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infections related to using male condoms appear inconsistent. Longitudinal studies are more informative for this purpose. We undertook a systematic review of longitudinal studies on the effectiveness of male condoms in preventing HPV infection and cervical neoplasia. Methods We searched PubMed using MeSH terms for articles published until May 2013. Articles were included if they studied a change in non-immunocompromized women’s cervical HPV infection or cervical lesion status along with the frequency of condom use. Results In total, 384 abstracts were retrieved. Eight studies reported in 10 articles met the inclusion criteria for the final review. Four studies showed a statistically significantly protective effect of consistent condom use on HPV infection and on regression of cervical neoplasia. In the remaining four studies, a protective effect was also observed for these outcomes, although it was not statistically significant. Conclusions Consistent condom use appears to offer a relatively good protection from HPV infections and associated cervical neoplasia. Advice to use condoms might be used as an additional instrument to prevent unnecessary colposcopies and neoplasia treatments in cervical screening, and to reduce the risk of cervical cancer.

Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus in 5,072 Consecutive Cervical SurePath Samples Evaluated with the Roche Cobas HPV Real-Time PCR Assay

New commercially available Human Papillomavirus (HPV) assays need to be evaluated in a variety of cervical screening settings. Cobas HPV Test (cobas) is a real-time PCR-based assay allowing for separate detection of HPV genotypes 16 and 18 and a bulk of 12 other high-risk genotypes. The aim of the present study, Horizon, was to assess the prevalence of high-risk HPV infections in an area with a high background risk of cervical cancer, where women aged 23–65 years are targeted for cervical screening. We collected 6,258 consecutive cervical samples from the largest cervical screening laboratory in Denmark serving the whole of Copenhagen. All samples were stored in SurePath media. In total, 5,072 samples were tested with cobas, Hybrid Capture 2 High Risk HPV DNA test (HC2) and liquid-based cytology. Of these, 27% tested positive on cobas. This proportion decreased by age, being 43% in women aged 23–29 years and 10% in women aged 60–65 years. HC2 assay was positive in 20% of samples, and cytology was abnormal (≥ atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) for 7% samples. When only samples without recent abnormalities were taken into account, 24% tested positive on cobas, 19% on HC2, and 5% had abnormal cytology. The proportion of positive cobas samples was higher than in the ATHENA trial. The age-standardized cobas positivity vs. cytology abnormality was 3.9 in our study and 1.7 in ATHENA. If in Copenhagen the presently used cytology would be replaced by cobas in women above age 30 years, an extra 11% of women would based on historical data be expected to have a positive cobas test without an underlying cervical intraepithelial lesion grade 3 or worse. Countries with a high prevalence of HPV infections should therefore proceed to primary HPV-based cervical screening with caution.

VALGENT: A protocol for clinical validation of human papillomavirus assays

BACKGROUND Testing for high-risk HPV is more effective in primary cervical cancer screening than the cytological examination of a Pap smear. Separate genotyping may be useful for triage in both HPV-based and cytology-based screening. Only clinically validated tests should be used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES VALGENT is a study framework for test comparison and validation of HPV assays in general and HPV genotyping tests in particular according to clinically relevant outcomes and for clinical applications endorsed by scientific evidence. STUDY DESIGN VALGENT involves the collation of fresh or archived cervical cell specimen from women attending routine screening supplemented with cytologically abnormal samples. Multiple aliquots of residual material are sent from a central laboratory to participating laboratories for testing with novel HPV assays with limited, extended or full genotyping capacity. Outcomes are derived from screening and pathology registries. Each VALGENT panel includes an assay already validated for screening. A series of accuracy and concordance statistics were generated. RESULTS Currently, two VALGENT study rounds, originated from laboratories in Antwerp (Belgium) and Edinburgh (Scotland), were completed. Two new assays (G5+/6+ PCR-LMNX and Xpert HPV) were validated for screening by showing similar accuracy for cervical precancer as the standard comparator test. For two other tests (BD Onclarity, PapilloCheck) validation was confirmed. Inter-test agreement was high although certain type-specific discordances were observed which warrant further analysis. CONCLUSION VALGENT extends current guidelines for high-risk HPV test validation in cervical cancer screening and has produced a large study resource for test comparison. More robust procedures of sample selection and handling and integration with the global WHO reference laboratory network focusing on analytical accuracy, may result in the generation of an international standard and a formalized system for clinical validation of HPV assays and quality control in HPV-based screening.

Patterns of cervical coinfection with multiple human papilloma virus types in a screening population in Denmark.

Patterns of cervical human papillomavirus (HPV) infection suggest that HPV genotypes are not independent of each other. This may be explained by risk factors common to all HPV infections, but type-specific biological factors may also play a role. This raises the question of whether widespread use of the quadrivalent vaccine (covering HPV6, 11, 16, 18) may indirectly affect the prevalence of any non-vaccine types. Routine screening samples from 5014 Danish women were tested for 35 HPV genotypes (including 13 high-risk) using the Genomica CLART(®) HPV2 kit, which is a low-density microarray based on PCR amplification. Simulation studies were performed both under independence between genotypes and under a common dependence structure as would arise from common risk factors, and simulation results were compared to observed coinfection patterns. Overall HPV prevalence was 37.4%, with multiple infections in 17.9%. For 15 HPV types of primary interest (13 high-risk plus HPV6, 11), almost all pairs occurred more often than expected under independence; 33/105 (31.4%) were statistically significant (p<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons). The pairwise odds ratios showed significant heterogeneity (Woolfs test p<0.0001). For simulations based on common dependence, three pairs had observed to expected (O/E) ratios significantly different than 1 (31/68, O/E=4.20; 51/68, O/E=2.52; 33/58, O/E=3.27; all p<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons). HPV68 occurred in multiple infections nearly four times as often as expected under common dependence (p<0.005 after adjustment for multiple comparisons). These results indicate some interaction between HPV types, and suggest that common risk factors do not entirely explain the observed HPV coinfection pattern, although no evidence is found that the prevalence of any types not targeted by the quadrivalent vaccine may be indirectly increased or decreased after widespread use of the vaccine.

Comparison of the immunogenicity of Cervarix® and Gardasil® human papillomavirus vaccines for oncogenic non-vaccine serotypes HPV-31, HPV-33, and HPV-45 in HIV-infected adults

Individuals infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have excess risk of developing human papillomavirus (HPV)-related disease. A substantial fraction of HPV-associated cancers is caused by HPV serotypes not included in the currently available vaccines. Among healthy women, both Cervarix® (HPV-16/18, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, GSK) and Gardasil® (HPV-6/11/16/18, Merck) have demonstrated partial cross-protection against certain oncogenic non-vaccine HPV-types. Currently, there are no available data on vaccine-induced cross-protection in men and little is known about cross-reactive immunity after HPV-vaccination of HIV-infected individuals. In an investigator-initiated trial, we randomized 91 HIV-positive men and women to receive vaccination with Cervarix® or Gardasil®. The HPV-DNA status of the participants was determined with pcr before and after immunization. Cross-reactive antibody responses against HPV-31, HPV-33, and HPV-45 were evaluated for up to 12 months using a pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA). Geometric mean antibody titers (GMTs) were compared among vaccine groups and genders at 7 and 12 months. Both vaccines induced anti-HPV-31, -33, and -45 neutralizing antibodies in participants who were seronegative and HPV-DNA negative for those types at study entry. Geometric mean antibody titers were comparable between vaccine groups. Interestingly, anti-HPV-31 and -33 antibody titers were higher among women compared with men at 7 and 12 months. In conclusion, both licensed HPV-vaccines induced cross-neutralizing antibodies against frequent oncogenic non-vaccine serotypes HPV-31, HPV-33, and HPV-45 in HIV-infected adults, and women had greater serological responses against HPV-31 and -33 compared with men.

HPV prevalence and genotype distribution in a population-based split-sample study of well-screened women using CLART HPV2 Human Papillomavirus genotype microarray system

BackgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping assays are becoming increasingly attractive for use in mass screening, as they offer a possibility to integrate HPV screening with HPV vaccine monitoring, thereby generating a synergy between the two main modes of cervical cancer prevention. The Genomica CLART HPV2 assay is a semi-automated PCR-based microarray assay detecting 35 high-risk and low-risk HPV genotypes. However, few reports have described this assay in cervical screening.An aim of the present study, Horizon, was to assess the prevalence of high-risk HPV infections in Copenhagen, Denmark, an area with a high background risk of cervical cancer where women aged 23-65 years are targeted for organized screening.MethodsMaterial from 5,068 SurePath samples of women participating in routine screening and clinical follow-up of cervical abnormalities was tested using liquid based cytology, CLART HPV2 and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2).ResultsAt least one of the 35 defined genotypes was detected by CLART in 1,896 (37%) samples. The most frequent high-risk genotypes were HPV 16 (7%), HPV 52 (5%), and HPV 31 (4%). The most frequent low-risk genotypes were HPV 53 (5%), HPV 61 (4%), and HPV 66 (3%). Among 4,793 women targeted by the screening program (23-65 years), 1,166 (24%) tested positive for one or more of the 13 high-risk genotypes. This proportion decreased from 40% at age 23-29 years to 10% at age 60-65 years. On HC2, 1,035 (20%) samples were positive for any high-risk and thus CLART showed a higher analytical sensitivity for 13 high-risk HPV genotypes than HC2, and this was found in all age-groups and in women normal cytology.ConclusionsCLART performed well with a positive reproducibility for high-risk genotypes of 86%, and a negative reproducibility of 97%. This report furthermore updates the genotype distribution in Denmark prior to the inclusion of the HPV-vaccinated cohorts into the screening program, and as such represents a valuable baseline for future vaccine impact assessment.

Comparison of three human papillomavirus DNA assays and one mRNA assay in women with abnormal cytology

OBJECTIVE To compare the clinical characteristics of four human papillomavirus (HPV) assays: hybrid capture 2 (HC2), cobas, CLART, and APTIMA in Danish women with abnormal cytology. METHODS SurePath samples from 367 consecutive women from Copenhagen, with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse, were tested with the four assays. These women were routinely recommended for repeated testing or were referred for colposcopy. Their worst histological diagnosis in 29 months from baseline was retrieved from the Danish National Pathology Data Bank. RESULTS Of the 367 women, 16 (4%) had no follow-up, 232 (63%) had <CIN2, 35 (10%) had CIN2, 81 (22%) had CIN3, and 3 (1%) had cervical cancer. The sensitivity for ≥CIN3 was 95% (95% CI: 88-99) for HC2, 94% (95% CI: 87-98) for cobas, 93% (95% CI: 85-97) for CLART, and 87% (95% CI: 78-93) for APTIMA. In women of age above 30 years, the sensitivities were 98% (95% CI: 87-100), 93% (95% CI: 80-98), 90% (95% CI: 77-97), and 93% (95% CI: 80-98), respectively. One woman with cervical cancer tested negative on CLART and one on cobas; HC2 and APTIMA were positive in all three cancer cases. The specificity for <CIN3 was low for all assays and varied between 22% and 35%. Similar results were seen for ≥CIN2. CONCLUSIONS Small differences in clinical characteristics were found for the four HPV assays in Danish women with abnormal cytology aged ≥30 years. At younger ages, APTIMA was somewhat less sensitive for high-grade CIN than the three HPV DNA assays.