Effect of different human papillomavirus serological and dnacriteria on vaccine efficacy estimates

Krystle A Lang Kuhs, Carolina Porras, John T. Schiller, Ana Cecilia Rodriguez, Mark Schiffman, Paula Gonzalez, Sholom Wacholder, Arpita Ghosh, Yan Li, Douglas R. Lowy, Aimée R. Kreimer, Sylviane Poncelet, John Schussler, Wim Quint, Leen Jan Van Doorn, Mark E. Sherman, Mary Sidawy, Rolando Herrero, Allan Hildesheim, Mahboobeh Safaeian

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Two trials of clinically approved human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease (FUTURE I/II) and the Papilloma Trial Against Cancer in Young Adults (PATRICIA), reported a 22% difference in vaccine efficacy (VE) against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse in HPV-naïve subcohorts; however, serological testing methods and the HPV DNA criteria used to define HPVunexposed women differed between the studies. We applied previously described methods to simulate these HPV-naïve subcohorts within the Costa Rica HPV16/18 Vaccine Trial and assessed how these criteria affect the estimation of VE. We applied 2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) thresholds for HPV16 and HPV18 seropositivity (8 and 7 ELISA units/mL, respectively, for PATRICIA; 54 and 65 ELISA units/mL, respectively, for FUTURE I/II (to approximate the competitive Luminex immunoassay)) and 2 criteria for HPV DNA positivity (12 oncogenic HPV types, plus HPV66 and 68/73 for PATRICIA; or plus HPV6 and 11 for FUTURE I/II). VE was computed in the 2 naïve subcohorts. Using the FUTURE I/II and PATRICIA criteria, VE estimates against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, regardless of HPV type, were 69.0% (95% confidence interval: 40.3%, 84.9%) and 80.8% (95% confidence interval: 52.6%, 93.5%), respectively (P = 0.1). Although the application of FUTURE I/II criteria to our cohort resulted in the inclusion of more sexually experienced women, methodological differences did not fully explain the VE differences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)599-607
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Epidemiology
Volume180
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Vaccines
Papilloma
Young Adult
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
Neoplasms
Confidence Intervals
Papillomavirus Vaccines
Costa Rica
DNA
Immunoassay

Keywords

  • Human papillomavirus
  • Methodological differences
  • Naïve population
  • Vaccine efficacy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Kuhs, K. A. L., Porras, C., Schiller, J. T., Rodriguez, A. C., Schiffman, M., Gonzalez, P., ... Safaeian, M. (2014). Effect of different human papillomavirus serological and dnacriteria on vaccine efficacy estimates. American Journal of Epidemiology, 180(6), 599-607. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu168

Effect of different human papillomavirus serological and dnacriteria on vaccine efficacy estimates. / Kuhs, Krystle A Lang; Porras, Carolina; Schiller, John T.; Rodriguez, Ana Cecilia; Schiffman, Mark; Gonzalez, Paula; Wacholder, Sholom; Ghosh, Arpita; Li, Yan; Lowy, Douglas R.; Kreimer, Aimée R.; Poncelet, Sylviane; Schussler, John; Quint, Wim; Van Doorn, Leen Jan; Sherman, Mark E.; Sidawy, Mary; Herrero, Rolando; Hildesheim, Allan; Safaeian, Mahboobeh.

In: American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 180, No. 6, 2014, p. 599-607.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kuhs, KAL, Porras, C, Schiller, JT, Rodriguez, AC, Schiffman, M, Gonzalez, P, Wacholder, S, Ghosh, A, Li, Y, Lowy, DR, Kreimer, AR, Poncelet, S, Schussler, J, Quint, W, Van Doorn, LJ, Sherman, ME, Sidawy, M, Herrero, R, Hildesheim, A & Safaeian, M 2014, 'Effect of different human papillomavirus serological and dnacriteria on vaccine efficacy estimates', American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 180, no. 6, pp. 599-607. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu168
Kuhs, Krystle A Lang ; Porras, Carolina ; Schiller, John T. ; Rodriguez, Ana Cecilia ; Schiffman, Mark ; Gonzalez, Paula ; Wacholder, Sholom ; Ghosh, Arpita ; Li, Yan ; Lowy, Douglas R. ; Kreimer, Aimée R. ; Poncelet, Sylviane ; Schussler, John ; Quint, Wim ; Van Doorn, Leen Jan ; Sherman, Mark E. ; Sidawy, Mary ; Herrero, Rolando ; Hildesheim, Allan ; Safaeian, Mahboobeh. / Effect of different human papillomavirus serological and dnacriteria on vaccine efficacy estimates. In: American Journal of Epidemiology. 2014 ; Vol. 180, No. 6. pp. 599-607.
@article{6d14f38a79b54e97aaf7a3146caa59e7,
title = "Effect of different human papillomavirus serological and dnacriteria on vaccine efficacy estimates",
abstract = "Two trials of clinically approved human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease (FUTURE I/II) and the Papilloma Trial Against Cancer in Young Adults (PATRICIA), reported a 22{\%} difference in vaccine efficacy (VE) against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse in HPV-na{\"i}ve subcohorts; however, serological testing methods and the HPV DNA criteria used to define HPVunexposed women differed between the studies. We applied previously described methods to simulate these HPV-na{\"i}ve subcohorts within the Costa Rica HPV16/18 Vaccine Trial and assessed how these criteria affect the estimation of VE. We applied 2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) thresholds for HPV16 and HPV18 seropositivity (8 and 7 ELISA units/mL, respectively, for PATRICIA; 54 and 65 ELISA units/mL, respectively, for FUTURE I/II (to approximate the competitive Luminex immunoassay)) and 2 criteria for HPV DNA positivity (12 oncogenic HPV types, plus HPV66 and 68/73 for PATRICIA; or plus HPV6 and 11 for FUTURE I/II). VE was computed in the 2 na{\"i}ve subcohorts. Using the FUTURE I/II and PATRICIA criteria, VE estimates against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, regardless of HPV type, were 69.0{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval: 40.3{\%}, 84.9{\%}) and 80.8{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval: 52.6{\%}, 93.5{\%}), respectively (P = 0.1). Although the application of FUTURE I/II criteria to our cohort resulted in the inclusion of more sexually experienced women, methodological differences did not fully explain the VE differences.",
keywords = "Human papillomavirus, Methodological differences, Na{\"i}ve population, Vaccine efficacy",
author = "Kuhs, {Krystle A Lang} and Carolina Porras and Schiller, {John T.} and Rodriguez, {Ana Cecilia} and Mark Schiffman and Paula Gonzalez and Sholom Wacholder and Arpita Ghosh and Yan Li and Lowy, {Douglas R.} and Kreimer, {Aim{\'e}e R.} and Sylviane Poncelet and John Schussler and Wim Quint and {Van Doorn}, {Leen Jan} and Sherman, {Mark E.} and Mary Sidawy and Rolando Herrero and Allan Hildesheim and Mahboobeh Safaeian",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1093/aje/kwu168",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "180",
pages = "599--607",
journal = "American Journal of Epidemiology",
issn = "0002-9262",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of different human papillomavirus serological and dnacriteria on vaccine efficacy estimates

AU - Kuhs, Krystle A Lang

AU - Porras, Carolina

AU - Schiller, John T.

AU - Rodriguez, Ana Cecilia

AU - Schiffman, Mark

AU - Gonzalez, Paula

AU - Wacholder, Sholom

AU - Ghosh, Arpita

AU - Li, Yan

AU - Lowy, Douglas R.

AU - Kreimer, Aimée R.

AU - Poncelet, Sylviane

AU - Schussler, John

AU - Quint, Wim

AU - Van Doorn, Leen Jan

AU - Sherman, Mark E.

AU - Sidawy, Mary

AU - Herrero, Rolando

AU - Hildesheim, Allan

AU - Safaeian, Mahboobeh

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Two trials of clinically approved human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease (FUTURE I/II) and the Papilloma Trial Against Cancer in Young Adults (PATRICIA), reported a 22% difference in vaccine efficacy (VE) against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse in HPV-naïve subcohorts; however, serological testing methods and the HPV DNA criteria used to define HPVunexposed women differed between the studies. We applied previously described methods to simulate these HPV-naïve subcohorts within the Costa Rica HPV16/18 Vaccine Trial and assessed how these criteria affect the estimation of VE. We applied 2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) thresholds for HPV16 and HPV18 seropositivity (8 and 7 ELISA units/mL, respectively, for PATRICIA; 54 and 65 ELISA units/mL, respectively, for FUTURE I/II (to approximate the competitive Luminex immunoassay)) and 2 criteria for HPV DNA positivity (12 oncogenic HPV types, plus HPV66 and 68/73 for PATRICIA; or plus HPV6 and 11 for FUTURE I/II). VE was computed in the 2 naïve subcohorts. Using the FUTURE I/II and PATRICIA criteria, VE estimates against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, regardless of HPV type, were 69.0% (95% confidence interval: 40.3%, 84.9%) and 80.8% (95% confidence interval: 52.6%, 93.5%), respectively (P = 0.1). Although the application of FUTURE I/II criteria to our cohort resulted in the inclusion of more sexually experienced women, methodological differences did not fully explain the VE differences.

AB - Two trials of clinically approved human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease (FUTURE I/II) and the Papilloma Trial Against Cancer in Young Adults (PATRICIA), reported a 22% difference in vaccine efficacy (VE) against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse in HPV-naïve subcohorts; however, serological testing methods and the HPV DNA criteria used to define HPVunexposed women differed between the studies. We applied previously described methods to simulate these HPV-naïve subcohorts within the Costa Rica HPV16/18 Vaccine Trial and assessed how these criteria affect the estimation of VE. We applied 2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) thresholds for HPV16 and HPV18 seropositivity (8 and 7 ELISA units/mL, respectively, for PATRICIA; 54 and 65 ELISA units/mL, respectively, for FUTURE I/II (to approximate the competitive Luminex immunoassay)) and 2 criteria for HPV DNA positivity (12 oncogenic HPV types, plus HPV66 and 68/73 for PATRICIA; or plus HPV6 and 11 for FUTURE I/II). VE was computed in the 2 naïve subcohorts. Using the FUTURE I/II and PATRICIA criteria, VE estimates against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, regardless of HPV type, were 69.0% (95% confidence interval: 40.3%, 84.9%) and 80.8% (95% confidence interval: 52.6%, 93.5%), respectively (P = 0.1). Although the application of FUTURE I/II criteria to our cohort resulted in the inclusion of more sexually experienced women, methodological differences did not fully explain the VE differences.

KW - Human papillomavirus

KW - Methodological differences

KW - Naïve population

KW - Vaccine efficacy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84907487061&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84907487061&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/aje/kwu168

DO - 10.1093/aje/kwu168

M3 - Article

VL - 180

SP - 599

EP - 607

JO - American Journal of Epidemiology

JF - American Journal of Epidemiology

SN - 0002-9262

IS - 6

ER -