Association of Chlamydia trachomatis infection with cervical atypia in adolescent women with short-term or long-term use of oral contraceptives: a longitudinal study in HPV vaccinated women

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the relationship between Chlamydia trachomatis infection, duration of oral contraceptive (OC) use and cervical atypia among young adult Finnish women.

DESIGN

A longitudinal study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Women who were included in this study participated in a community-randomised trial on the effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and C. trachomatis screening at ages 18.5 and 22 years in Finland. They completed questionnaires on both visits about sexual behaviours. The cytology test results at age 18.5 and 22 years were also available for those women. The total number of participants in this study at 18.5 years of age were 11 701 and at 22 years of age were 6618.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

ORs with 95% CIs using univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess the association between C. trachomatis infection, duration of OC and squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL).

RESULTS

There were 940 cytological SIL cases at the first screening visit and 129 cytological SIL cases at the second screening visit. Among the 22 years old, more than fourfold adjusted risk of SIL was associated with C. trachomatis positivity. The HPV16/18, condom use, smoking and number of sexual partners adjusted joint effect of prolonged OC use and C. trachomatis was significantly increased (OR 4.7, 95% CI 1.7 to 12.8) in the 22-year-old women. This observed joint effect was 1.6 times higher than expected on a multiplicative scale. On additive scale, the observed relative excess risk from interaction was 1.8.

CONCLUSION

The risk of SIL in HPV vaccinated women is significantly increased if they are C. trachomatis positive and have used OC for 5 or more years. The biological basis may be lack of condom facilitated protection against sexually transmitted diseases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00534638.

Human papillomavirus vaccine efficacy against invasive, HPV-positive cancers: population-based follow-up of a cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination protects against HPV, a necessary risk factor for cervical cancer. We now report results from population-based follow-up of randomised cohorts that vaccination provides HPV-type-specific protection against invasive cancer.

METHODS

Individually and/or cluster randomised cohorts of HPV-vaccinated and non-vaccinated women were enrolled in 2002-2005. HPV vaccine cohorts comprised originally 16-17 year-old HPV 16/18-vaccinated PATRICIA (NCT00122681) and 012 trial (NCT00169494) participants (2465) and HPV6/11/16/18-vaccinated FUTURE II (NCT00092534) participants (866). Altogether, 3341 vaccines were followed by the Finnish Cancer Registry in the same way as 16 526 non-HPV-vaccinated controls. The control cohort stemmed from 15 665 originally 18-19 years-old women enrolled in 2003 (6499) or 2005 (9166) and 861 placebo recipients of the FUTURE II trial. The follow-up started 6 months after the clinical trials in 2007 and 2009 and ended in 2019. It was age aligned for the cohorts.

FINDINGS

During a follow-up time of up to 11 years, we identified 17 HPV-positive invasive cancer cases (14 cervical cancers, 1 vaginal cancer, 1 vulvar cancer and 1 tongue cancer) in the non-HPV-vaccinated cohorts and no cases in the HPV-vaccinated cohorts. HPV typing of diagnostic tumour blocks found HPV16 in nine cervical cancer cases, HPV18, HPV33 and HPV52 each in two cases and HPV45 in one cervical cancer case. The vaginal, vulvar and tongue cancer cases were, respectively, positive for HPV16, HPV52/66 and HPV213. Intention-to-treat vaccine efficacy against all HPV-positive cancers was 100% (95% CI 2 to 100, p<0.05).

INTERPRETATION

Vaccination is effective against invasive HPV-positive cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00122681, Post-results; NCT00169494, Post-results; NCT00092534, Post-results.

Effectiveness of various human papillomavirus vaccination strategies: A community randomized trial in Finland

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a community-randomized trial (NCTBLINDED) in Finland to assess gender-neutral and girls-only vaccination strategies with the AS04-adjuvanted human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 (AS04-HPV-16/18)vaccine.

METHODS

Girls and boys (12-15 years) were invited. We randomized 33 communities (1:1:1 ratio): Arm A: 90% of randomly selected girls and boys received AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine and 10% received hepatitis B vaccine (HBV); Arm B: 90% of randomly selected girls received AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine, 10% of girls received HBV, and all boys received HBV; Arm C: all participants received HBV. Effectiveness measurements against prevalence of HPV-16/18 cervical infection were estimated in girls at 18.5 years. The main measures were: (1) overall effectiveness comparing Arms A or B, regardless of vaccination status, vs Arm C; (2) total effectiveness comparing AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccinated girls in pooled Arms A/B vs Arm C; (3) indirect effectiveness (herd effect) comparing girls receiving HBV or unvaccinated in Arm A vs Arm C. Co-primary objectives were overall effectiveness following gender-neutral or girls-only vaccination.

RESULTS

Of 80,272 adolescents invited, 34,412 were enrolled. Overall effectiveness was 23.8% (95% confidence interval: -19.0, 51.1; P = 0.232) with gender-neutral vaccination. Following girls-only vaccination, overall effectiveness was 49.6% (20.1, 68.2; P = 0.004). Total effectiveness was over 90% regardless of vaccination strategy. No herd effect was found. Immunogenicity of the AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine was high in both sexes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study illustrates the difficulty in conducting community randomized trials. It is not plausible that vaccinating boys would reduce overall effectiveness, and the apparent lack of herd effect was unexpected given findings from other studies. This analysis was likely confounded by several factors but confirms the vaccine's high total effectiveness as in clinical trials.

Baseline findings and safety of infrequent vs. frequent screening of human papillomavirus vaccinated women

Less frequent cervical cancer screening in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinated birth cohorts could produce considerable savings without increasing cervical cancer incidence and loss of life-years. We report here the baseline findings and interim results of safety and accuracy of infrequent screening among HPV16/18 vaccinated females. The entire 1992-1994 birth-cohorts (30,139 females) were invited to a community-randomized HPV16/18-vaccination trial. A total of 9,482 female trial participants received HPV16/18-vaccination in 2007-2009 at age of 13-15. At age 22, 4,273 (45%) of these females consented to attend a randomized trial on frequent (ages 22/25/28; Arm 1: 2,073 females) vs. infrequent screening (age 28; Arm 2: 2,200 females) in 2014-2017. Females (1,329), who had got HPV16/18 vaccination at age 18 comprised the safety Arm 3. Baseline prevalence and incidence of HPV16/18 and other high-risk HPV types were: 0.5% (53/1,000 follow-up years, 104 ) and 25% (2,530/104 ) in the frequently screened Arm 1; 0.2% (23/104 ) and 24% (2,413/104 ) in the infrequently screened Arm 2; and 3.1% (304/104 ) and 23% (2,284/104 ) in the safety Arm 3. Corresponding prevalence of HSIL/ASC-H and of any abnormal cytological findings were: 0.3 and 4.2% (Arm 1), 0.4 and 5.3% (Arm 2) and 0.3 and 4.7% (Arm 3). Equally rare HSIL/CIN3 findings in the infrequently screened safety Arm A3 (0.4%) and in the frequently screened Arm 1 (0.4%) indicate no safety concerns on infrequent screening despite the up to 10 times higher HPV16/18 baseline prevalence and incidence in the former.

Effectiveness of the AS04-adjuvanted HPV-16/18 vaccine in reducing oropharyngeal HPV infections in young females-Results from a community-randomized trial

We studied effectiveness of the AS04-adjuvanted HPV-16/18 (AS04-HPV-16/18) vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) oropharyngeal infections associated with the increase of head/neck cancers in western countries. All 38,631 resident adolescents from 1994 to 1995 birth cohorts of 33 Finnish communities were invited in this community-randomized trial (NCT00534638). During 2008-2009, 11,275 girls and 6,129 boys were enrolled in three arms of 11 communities each. In Arm A, 90% of vaccinated girls/boys, and in Arm B, 90% of vaccinated girls received AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine. Other Arm A/B and all Arm C vaccinated participants received control vaccine. All Arm A participants and Arm B female participants were blinded to vaccine allocation. Oropharyngeal samples were analyzed from 4,871 18.5-year-old females who attended follow-up visit 3-6 years postvaccination. HPV DNA prevalence was determined by SPF-10 LiPA and Multiplex type-specific PCR. Total vaccine effectiveness (VE) was defined as relative reduction of oropharyngeal HPV prevalence in pooled Arms A/B HPV-vaccinated females vs. all Arm C females. VE against oropharyngeal HPV-16/18, HPV-31/45 and HPV-31/33/45 infections were 82.4% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 47.3-94.1), 75.3% (95%CI: 12.7-93.0) and 69.9% (95% CI: 29.6-87.1), respectively. In conclusion, the AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine showed effectiveness against vaccine and nonvaccine HPV-types oropharyngeal infections in adolescent females up to 6 years postvaccination.

Gender-neutral vaccination provides improved control of human papillomavirus types 18/31/33/35 through herd immunity: Results of a community randomized trial (III)

With optimal strategy, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines have the potential to control HPV. We have assessed vaccine efficacy (VE), herd effect (HE) of HPV vaccination and overall protective effectiveness (PE) against high-risk HPV infections by HPV type and vaccination strategy in a community-randomized trial using the bivalent HPV16/18 vaccine. We randomized 33 communities to gender-neutral HPV vaccination (Arm A), HPV vaccination of girls and hepatitis B-virus (HBV) vaccination of boys (Arm B) and gender-neutral HBV vaccination (Arm C). Entire 1992-1995 male (40,852) and female (39,420) birth cohorts were invited, and 11,662 males and 20,513 females vaccinated with 20-30% and 45% coverage in 2007-2010. During 2010-2014, 11,396 cervicovaginal samples were collected from 13,545 18.5-year-old attendees. HPV typing was performed by a high-throughput PCR. VE was calculated for HPV vaccinated women and HE for non-HPV-vaccinated women, using the HBV vaccinated, for HE all non-HPV vaccinated, Arm C women as controls. PE was calculated as coverage rate-weighted mean of VE + HE. HPV16/18/45 and 31/33/35 VEs varied between 86-94% and 30-66%, respectively. Only the gender-neutral vaccination provided significant HEs against HPV18 (61%) and HPV31 (72%) in the 1995 birth cohort-increased HEs against HPV33 (39%) and HPV35 (42%) were also observed. Due to the increased HEs, PEs for HPV16/18/45 and HPV31/33/35 were comparable in the gender-neutral arm 1995 birth cohort. High vaccine efficacy against HPV16/18/45 and, gender-neutral vaccination-enforced, herd effect against HPV18/31/33/35 by the bivalent vaccine rapidly provides comparable overall protective effectiveness against six oncogenic HPV types: 16/18/31/33/35/45.

Impact of gender-neutral or girls-only vaccination against human papillomavirus-Results of a community-randomized clinical trial (I)

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is efficacious but the real-life effectiveness of gender-neutral and girls-only vaccination strategies is unknown. We report a community-randomized trial on the protective effectiveness [(PE) = vaccine efficacy (VE) + herd effect (HE)] of the two strategies among females in virtually HPV vaccination naïve population. We randomized 33 Finnish communities into Arm A) gender-neutral vaccination with AS04-adjuvanted HPV16/18 vaccine (11 communities), Arm B) HPV vaccination of girls and hepatitis B-virus (HBV) vaccination of boys (11 communities) or Arm C) gender-neutral HBV vaccination (11 communities). All resident 39,420 females and 40,852 males born 1992-95 were invited in 2007-09. Virtually all (99%) 12- to 15-year-old participating males (11,662) and females (20,513) received three doses resulting in uniform 20-30% male and 50% female vaccination coverage by birth cohort. Four years later (2010-14) 11,396 cervicovaginal samples obtained from 18.5 year-old women were tested for HPV DNA, and prevalence of cervical HPV infections by trial arm and birth cohort was the main outcome measure. VEs against HPV16/18 varied between 89.2% and 95.2% across birth cohorts in arms A and B. The VEs against non-vaccine types consistent with cross-protection were highest in those born 1994-95 for HPV45 (VEA 82.8%; VEB 86.1%) and for HPV31 (VEA 77.6%, VEB 84.6%). The HEs in the non HPV-vaccinated were statistically significant in those born 1994-95 for HPV18 (HEA 51.0%; 95% CI 8.3-73.8, HEB 47.2%; 6.5-70.2) and for HPV31/33 in arm A (HEA 53.7%; 22.1-72.5). For HPV16 and 45 no significant herd effects were detected. PE estimates against HPV16/18 were similar by both strategies (PEA 58.1%; 45.1-69.4; PEB 55.7%; 42.9-66.6). PE estimates against HPV31/33 were higher by the gender-neutral vaccination (PEA 60.5%; 43.6-73.4; PEB 44.5%; 24.9-60.6). In conclusion, while gender-neutral strategy enhanced the effectiveness of HPV vaccination for cross-protected HPV types with low to moderate coverage, high coverage in males appears to be key to providing a substantial public health benefit also to unvaccinated females. Trial registration www.clinicaltrials.gov.com NCT000534638.

Ten-year follow-up of human papillomavirus vaccine efficacy against the most stringent cervical neoplasia end-point-registry-based follow-up of three cohorts from randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Due to long lag time between infection/cancer diagnoses human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs will deliver vaccine efficacy (VE) estimates against cancer end-points late. Cancer registry follow-up of population-based, randomised trial cohorts of vaccinated and unvaccinated women was undertaken for the estimation of VE against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade three and invasive cancer (CIN3+).

METHODS

We report interim results with 98 561 person years of Finnish Cancer Registry -based follow-up of individually and/or cluster randomised cohorts of HPV-16/18 vaccinated and unvaccinated adolescent women enrolled in June 2003/2005, and between May 2004 and April 2005, respectively. The cohorts comprised 15 627 18- to 19-year-old unvaccinated women (NCT01393470), and 2 401 and 64 16- to 17-year-old HPV-16/18 vaccinated women participating the PATRICIA (NCT00122681) and HPV-012 (NCT00169494) trials, respectively. The age-aligned passive follow-up started 6 months after the clinical trials' end.

RESULTS

During the follow-up of 4.5 to 10 years post enrolment we identified 75 cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) and 4 cases of invasive cervical cancer (ICC) in the unvaccinated cohort, and 4 CIN3 cases in the HPV-16/18 vaccinated women. Diagnostic blocks were available for HPV typing from 87% of the cases. CIN3+ lesions were detectable in 54 cases. HPV16 was found in 26 of 50 unvaccinated CIN3+ cases, and in 3 CIN3+ cases in the HPV-16/18 vaccinated women. The latter were all baseline positive for cervical HPV16 DNA. Baseline data was not available for the unvaccinated women. Intention-to-treat VE against any CIN3+ was 66% (95% CI 8, 88).

CONCLUSIONS

Ten years post vaccination the AS04-adjuvanted HPV-16/18 vaccine shows continued efficacy against CIN3+ irrespectively of HPV type. Vaccine efficacy was not observed in baseline HPV16 DNA positive subjects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01393470.

Impact of HPV16/18 vaccination on quality of life: a pilot study

OBJECTIVES

Genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infections and associated precancerous lesions adversely affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL). HPV vaccines provide effective protection against these conditions. We therefore investigated the impact of HPV vaccination on HRQoL in young women five years after participation in a phase III HPV vaccination trial.

METHODS

A total of 4808 originally 16- to 17-year-old Finnish girls had participated in the PATRICIA trial and received either bivalent HPV 16/18 vaccine or hepatitis A-virus (HAV) vaccine in 2004 to 2005. Unvaccinated girls (n = 9602), from adjacent birth cohorts, had participated in the control cohort in 2005. From 2009 to 2011, at 22 to 23 years of age, all participants received a questionnaire consisting of two generic HRQoL instruments (RAND36 and EQ VAS) and a disease-specific questionnaire (CECA10).

RESULTS

We analysed responses of 1143 HPV 16/18-vaccinated, 980 HAV-vaccinated, and 3753 unvaccinated young women. The unadjusted mean outcome measures of the different HRQoL estimates were similar in the three different responder cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Five years after vaccination the health-related quality of life of HPV 16/ 18- vaccinated young women did not differ from those of HAV-vaccinated or unvaccinated controls representing the general population.

Cyclosporine in the treatment of palmoplantar pustulosis. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND AND DESIGN

Palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) is an inflammatory skin disease characterized by pustule formation, erythema, induration, and scaling of the affected skin of the palms and soles. Palmoplantar pustulosis is usually resistant to treatment. In a double-blind study (phase 1) of 4 weeks, 40 patients with PPP were randomized to receive oral cyclosporine, 2.5 mg/kg per day, or placebo. An open-label dose-finding phase 2 with cyclosporine doses of 1.25, 2.5, and 3.75 mg/kg per day was performed in the following 3 months. The patients were then followed for at least 2 months after termination of cyclosporine treatment. Response to treatment was judged by the number of fresh pustules. Patients displaying a reduction of 50% or greater in the number of pustules, compared with baseline, were defined as responders.

RESULTS

Of the patients who completed phase 1, 17 of 19 patients in the cyclosporine group and four of 15 in the placebo group were classified as responders (P < .001). Cyclosporine, but not placebo, significantly reduced formation of new pustules (P = .001). In the subsequent open phase, a daily cyclosporine dose of 1.25 mg/kg appeared to be an effective treatment of PPP in approximately half of the treated patients. Many patients relapsed after initial success with cyclosporine. However, only one patient studied totally failed to respond to cyclosporine treatment. At the end of phase 3, most of the studied parameters had returned to pretreatment levels. The most common side effect was headache in the 2.5 mg/kg per day dosage group; no significant side effects were observed in the 1.25 mg/kg per day dosage group.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose cyclosporine treatment (1.25 to 2.5 mg/kg per day) is effective in PPP.

Efficacy and tolerability of isradipine and metoprolol in treatment of hypertension: the Finnish Isradipine Study in Hypertension (FISH)

Eight hundred seventy-six men and women with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 95-115 mm Hg during a 4-week placebo period were included in a multicenter trial; 479 patients had previously been treated for hypertension. The patients were randomized to receive isradipine or metoprolol; both groups were comparable for age, weight, height, smoking habits, and duration of hypertension. By the end of the placebo period, 79 patients did not fulfill the final entry criteria and were withdrawn. The isradipine group consisted of 398 patients (164 women and 234 men), and the metoprolol group consisted of 399 patients (173 women and 226 men). The initial dose of isradipine was 1.25 mg twice daily (b.i.d.), and the initial dose of metoprolol was 50 mg b.i.d.; the doses were doubled after 4 weeks if DBP had not decreased to less than or equal to 90 mm Hg. After 8 weeks, the isradipine group began combination therapy with metoprolol 50 mg b.i.d. and the metoprolol group began combination therapy with isradipine 1.25 mg b.i.d. if DBP was not less than or equal to 90 mm Hg. After 8 weeks monotherapy, mean BP (MBP) was reduced by 13/11 mm Hg (161/104 to 148/93) in the isradipine group and by 15/12 mm Hg (160/103 to 145/91) in the metoprolol group. Monotherapy with isradipine normalized DBP to less than or equal to 90 mm Hg in 52% with a mean dose of 4.26 mg daily, and monotherapy with metoprolol normalized DBP in 58% with a mean dose of 155 mg daily.1+

Agranulocytosis in patients treated with clozapine. A study of the Finnish epidemic

The occurrence of a sudden outbreak of agranulocytosis in Finland among patients being treated with clozapine led to intensive investigations in an attempt to find a local precipitating factor. Granulocytopenia after clozapine was found to have the same characteristics as that reported after phenothiazines. No local factor, either genetic or environmental, was found which could have been responsible for the increased frequency of occurrence in Finland. The need to be aware of the risk and to take appropriate precautionary measures (e.g. weekly leucocyte counts in the first months) is emphasized.