[Infectious Agents and Cancer, 8 November 2023]

Background: Understanding the role of naturally acquired (i.e., infection-induced) human papillomavirus (HPV) antibodies against reinfection is important given the high incidence of this sexually transmitted infection. However, the protective effect of naturally acquired antibodies in terms of the level of protection, duration, and differential effect by sex remains incompletely understood. We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to (1) strengthen the evidence on the association between HPV antibodies acquired through past infection and subsequent type-specific HPV detection, (2) investigate the potential influence of type-specific HPV antibody levels, and (3) assess differential effects by HIV status.

Methods: We searched Embase and Medline databases to identify studies which prospectively assessed the risk of type-specific HPV detection by baseline homologous HPV serostatus among unvaccinated individuals. Random-effect models were used to pool the measures of association of naturally acquired HPV antibodies against subsequent incident detection and persistent HPV positivity. Sources of heterogeneity for each type were assessed through subgroup analyses stratified by sex, anatomical site of infection, male sexual orientation, age group, and length of follow-up period. Evidence of a dose-response relationship of the association between levels of baseline HPV antibodies and type-specific HPV detection was assessed. Finally, we pooled estimates from publications reporting associations between HPV serostatus and type-specific HPV detection by baseline HIV status.

Results: We identified 26 publications (16 independent studies, with 62,363 participants) reporting associations between baseline HPV serostatus and incident HPV detection, mainly for HPV-16 and HPV-18, the most detected HPV type. We found evidence of protective effects of baseline HPV seropositivity and subsequent detection of HPV DNA (0.70, 95% CI 0.61–0.80, NE = 11) and persistent HPV positivity (0.65, 95% CI 0.42–1.01, NE = 5) mainly for HPV-16 among females, but not among males, nor for HPV-18. Estimates from 8 studies suggested a negative dose–response relationship between HPV antibody level and subsequent detection among females. Finally, we did not observe any differential effect by baseline HIV status due to the limited number of studies available.

Conclusion: We did not find evidence that naturally acquired HPV antibodies protect against subsequent HPV positivity in males and provide only modest protection among females for HPV-16. One potential limitation to the interpretation of these findings is potential misclassification biases due to different causes.

[The Lancet Global Health, January 2023]

Background: The WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts recommended that an extended interval of 3–5 years between the two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine could be considered to alleviate vaccine supply shortages. However, three concerns have limited the introduction of extended schedules: girls could be infected between the two doses, the vaccination coverage for the second dose could be lower at ages 13–14 years than at ages 9–10 years, and identifying girls vaccinated with a first dose to give them the second dose could be difficult. Using mathematical modelling, we examined the potential effect of these concerns on the population-level impact and efficiency of extended dose HPV vaccination schedules.

Methods: We used HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based, transmission-dynamic model of multitype HPV infection and disease, calibrated to country-specific data for four low-income and middle-income countries (India, Viet Nam, Uganda, and Nigeria). For the extended dose scenarios, we varied the vaccination coverage of the second dose among girls previously vaccinated, the one-dose vaccine efficacy, and the one-dose vaccine duration of protection. We also examined a strategy in which girls aged 14 years were vaccinated irrespective of their previous vaccination status. We used a scenario of girls-only two-dose vaccination at age 9 years (vaccine=9 valent, vaccine-type efficacy=100%, duration of protection=lifetime, and coverage=80%) as our comparator. We estimated two outcomes: the relative reduction in the age-standardised cervical cancer incidence (population-level impact) and the number of cervical cancers averted per 100 000 doses (efficiency).

Findings: Our model projected substantial reductions in cervical cancer incidence over 100 years with the two-dose schedule (79–86% depending on the country), compared with no vaccination. Projections for the 5-year extended schedule, in which the second dose is given only to girls previously vaccinated at age 9 years, were similar to the current two-dose schedule, unless vaccination coverage of the second dose is very low (reductions in cervical cancer incidence of 71–78% assuming 30% coverage at age 14 years among girls vaccinated at age 9 years). However, when the dose at age 14 years is given to girls irrespective of vaccination status and assuming high vaccination coverage, the model projected a substantially greater reduction in cervical cancer incidence compared with the current two-dose schedule (reductions in cervical cancer incidence of 86–93% assuming 70% coverage at age 14 years, irrespective of vaccination status). Efficiency of the extended schedule was greater than the two-dose schedule, even with a drop in vaccination coverage.

Interpretation: The three concerns are unlikely to have a substantial effect on the population-level impact of extended dose schedules. Hence, extended dose schedules will likely provide similar cervical cancer reductions as two-dose schedules, while reducing the number of doses required in the short-term, providing a more efficient use of scarce resources, and offering a 5-year time window to reassess the necessity of the second dose.

Funding: WHO, Canadian Institute of Health Research Foundation, Fonds de recherche du Québec–Santé, Digital Research Alliance of Canada, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

[The Lancet Public Health, October 2023]

Background: Given the accumulating evidence that one-dose vaccination could provide high and sustained protection against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and related diseases, we examined the population-level effectiveness and efficiency of one-dose HPV vaccination of girls compared with two-dose vaccination, using mathematical modelling.

Methods: In this mathematical modelling study, we used HPV-ADVISE LMIC, an individual-based transmission-dynamic model independently calibrated to four epidemiologically diverse low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs; India, Nigeria, Uganda, and Viet Nam). We parameterised and calibrated the model using sexual behaviour and epidemiological data identified from international population-based datasets and the literature. All base-case vaccination scenarios start in 2023 with the nonavalent vaccine and assumed 80% vaccination coverage with one or two doses. We assumed that two doses of vaccine provide 100% efficacy against vaccine-type infections and a lifelong duration of protection. We examined a non-inferior vaccination scenario for one dose compared with two doses, pessimistic scenarios of lower one-dose vaccine efficacy (85%) or a shorter duration of protection (ie, 20 or 30 years), and the effectiveness of a mitigation scenario in which schedules would switch from one dose to two doses. We also did sensitivity analyses by varying vaccination coverage. We used three outcomes: the relative reduction in cervical cancer incidence, the number of cervical cancers averted, and the number of vaccine doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer.

Findings: Assuming non-inferior vaccine characteristics for one dose compared with two doses, the model projections show that two-dose or one-dose routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years (with a multi-age cohort vaccination of girls aged 10–14 years) would avert 12·0 million (80% UI 9·5–14·5) cervical cancers in India, 4·7 million (3·4–5·8) in Nigeria, 2·3 million (1·9–2·6) in Uganda, and 0·4 million (0·2–0·5) in Viet Nam over 100 years. Under pessimistic assumptions of lower one-dose efficacy (85%) or a shorter duration of protection (ie, 30 years), one-dose routine vaccination would avert 69% (61–80) to 94% (92–96) of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose routine vaccination. However, when assuming a duration of protection of 20 years, one-dose routine vaccination would avert substantially fewer cervical cancers (ie, 35% [26–44] to 69% [65–71] of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose routine vaccination). A switch from one-dose to two-dose routine vaccination of girls aged 9 years, with a one-dose catch-up of girls aged 10–14 years, 5 years after the start of the vaccination programme, could mitigate potential losses in cervical cancer prevention from a short one-dose duration of protection (averting 92% [83–98] to 99% [97–100]) of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose routine vaccination). One-dose routine vaccination would result in fewer doses needed to prevent one cervical cancer than two-dose routine vaccination, even if the duration of protection is as low as 20 years. Finally, for countries with two-dose routine vaccination, adding one-dose multi-age cohort vaccination in the first year would provide similar benefits as a two-dose multi-age cohort vaccination, and would be more efficient even under the pessimistic assumptions of lower one-dose vaccine efficacy or duration of protection.

Interpretation: One-dose routine vaccination could avert most of the cervical cancers averted with two-dose vaccination while being more efficient, provided the duration of one-dose protection is greater than 20–30 years (depending on the LMIC). The doses saved by introducing one-dose routine vaccination could offer the opportunity to vaccinate girls before they age out of the vaccination window of 9–14 years and, potentially, to vaccinate boys or older age groups.