Background. This randomized, open trial compared regimens including 2 doses (2D) of human papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in girls aged 9–14 years with one including 3 doses (3D) in women aged 15–25 years.Methods. Girls aged 9–14 years were randomized to receive 2D at months 0 and 6 (M0,6; (n = 550) or months 0 and 12 (M0,12; n = 415), and women aged 15–25 years received 3D at months 0, 1, and 6 (n = 482). End points included noninferiority of HPV-16/18 antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for 2D (M0,6) versus 3D (primary), 2D (M0,12) versus 3D, and 2D (M0,6) versus 2D (M0,12); neutralizing antibodies; cell-mediated immunity; reactogenicity; and safety. Limits of noninferiority were predefined as <5% difference in seroconversion rate and <2-fold difference in geometric mean antibody titer ratio.Results. One month after the last dose, both 2D regimens in girls aged 9–14 years were noninferior to 3D in women aged 15–25 years and 2D (M0,12) was noninferior to 2D (M0,6). Geometric mean antibody titer ratios (3D/2D) for HPV-16 and HPV-18 were 1.09 (95% confidence interval, .97–1.22) and 0.85 (.76–.95) for 2D (M0,6) versus 3D and 0.89 (.79–1.01) and 0.75 (.67–.85) for 2D (M0,12) versus 3D. The safety profile was clinically acceptable in all groups.Conclusions. The 2D regimens for the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in girls aged 9–14 years (M0,6 or M0,12) elicited HPV-16/18 immune responses that were noninferior to 3D in women aged 15–25 years.Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01381575.
Peroxiredoxin-5 (PRDX5) is an antioxidant enzyme which differs from the other peroxiredoxins with regards to its enzymatic mechanism, its high affinity for organic peroxides and peroxynitrite and its wide subcellular distribution. In particular, the mitochondrial isoform of PRDX5 confers a remarkable cytoprotection toward oxidative stress to mammalian cells.
This observer-blind study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT01462357) compared the immunogenicity and safety of 2 doses of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine (HPV-16/18(2D)) vs. 2 or 3 doses of the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (HPV-6/11/16/18(2D) and HPV-6/11/16/18(3D)) in healthy girls aged 9–14 y. Girls were randomized (1:1:1) to receive HPV-16/18(2D) at months (M) 0,6 (N = 359), HPV-6/11/16/18(2D) at M0,6 (N = 358) or HPV-6/11/16/18(3D) at M0,2,6 (N = 358). The primary objective was non-inferiority/superiority of HPV-16/18 antibodies by ELISA for HPV-16/18(2D) vs. HPV-6/11/16/18(2D) at M7 in the according-to-protocol immunogenicity cohort (ATP-I) and total vaccinated cohort, respectively. Secondary objectives included non-inferiority/superiority of HPV-16/18(2D) vs. HPV-6/11/16/18(3D) at M7, non-inferiority/superiority at M12, HPV-16/18 neutralizing antibodies, frequencies of T-cells/B-cells, reactogenicity and safety. Antibody responses at M7 for HPV-16/18(2D) were superior to those for HPV-6/11/16/18(2D) and HPV-6/11/16/18(3D) (lower limit of 95% confidence interval for geometric mean titer ratio (GMR) was >1): HPV-16/18(2D)/HPV-6/11/16/18(2D) GMRs were 1.69 [1.49–1.91] for anti-HPV-16 and 4.52 [3.97–5.13] for anti-HPV-18; HPV-16/18(2D)/HPV-6/11/16/18(3D) GMRs were 1.72 [1.54–1.93] for anti-HPV-16 and 3.22 [2.82–3.68] for anti-HPV-18; p = 0.0001 for all comparisons. Non-inferiority/superiority was also demonstrated at M12. Among initially seronegative girls in the ATP-I, neutralizing antibody titers were at least 1.8-fold higher for HPV-16/18(2D) vs. HPV-6/11/16/18(2D) and HPV-6/11/16/18(3D) at M7 and M12. Frequencies of HPV-16/18-specific T-cells and B-cells were in similar ranges between groups. Reactogenicity and safety were in line with the known profile of each vaccine. In conclusion, superior HPV-16/18 antibody responses were elicited by 2 doses of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine compared with 2 or 3 doses of the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine in girls (9–14 years).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.