Among 16- to 23-year-old human immunodeficiency virus–infected young women who were human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA and HPV seronegative at the time of vaccination with the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, immune responses to vaccination were generally robust and the vaccine was well tolerated.
Keywords: immunogenicity, safety, human papillomavirus, vaccine, HIV infected
Abstract
Background
The objective of this study was to determine whether the 3-dose quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series (HPV-6, -11, -16, -18) is immunogenic and safe in young women infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Methods
We enrolled 99 women aged 16–23 years in a phase 2, open-label, multicenter trial, conducted from 2008 to 2011 by the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions. Outcome measures were immunogenicity 4 weeks after dose 3, measured by (1) geometric mean titers (GMTs) and (2) seroconversion rates for HPV-6, -11, -16, and -18, among those seronegative and HPV DNA negative for each type. Immune responses were compared to those of a historical comparison group of HIV-negative women (n = 267) using univariate methods. Clinical and laboratory adverse events were assessed after each dose.
Results
The mean age of subjects was 21.4 years; 80% were non-Hispanic black, 69 were not taking antiretroviral therapy (ART), and 30 were taking ART. No differences in GMTs were noted among participants taking ART vs the comparison group, but GMTs were lower in participants not taking ART vs the comparison group for HPV-16 (2393 vs 3892 milli-Merck units per milliliter [mMU/mL], P = .012) and HPV-18 (463 vs 801 mMU/mL, P = .003). Seroconversion rates were 100% for HPV-6, -11, -16, and -18 among participants taking ART. Rates ranged from 92.3% (for HPV-18) to 100.0% (for HPV-6) among participants not taking ART. One severe adverse event (fatigue) was noted.
Conclusions
In a sample of HIV-infected women who were HPV DNA and HPV seronegative, immune responses to HPV vaccination were generally robust and the vaccine was well tolerated.
Clinical Trials Registration
Women infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are at significantly higher risk than HIV-uninfected women for persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and progression to cervical precancers and invasive cervical cancer; in addition, the incidence of cervical cancer increases with more severe immunosuppression [1–5]. Recurrence of cervical precancers after treatment is common in HIV-infected individuals [6–8].
Two prophylactic HPV vaccines that are safe, well tolerated, and effective in healthy individuals are now recommended for girls and women aged 11–26 years: a bivalent (HPV-16, -18) vaccine and a quadrivalent (HPV-6, -11, -16, -18) vaccine [9]. The quadrivalent vaccine is also recommended for boys and men aged 11–21 years, and for men aged 22–26 years who have sex with men or who are immunocompromised [10, 11]. Despite the potential health benefits of HPV vaccination among HIV-infected individuals, little is known about its safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy in this population. Clinical trials demonstrated that healthy women who were previously uninfected with the HPV types targeted by the vaccines had a robust immune response to vaccination. Seroconversion rates were approximately 100%, and immune responses were excellent and associated with high clinical efficacy (98%–100%) for preventing cervical, vaginal, and vulvar lesions associated with vaccine-type HPV [12–17]. However, immune responses to vaccination in HIV-infected individuals are often impaired; this may be due to defective primary immune responses, defects in generation of immunologic memory, or clonal deletion/depletion of memory T and B cells [18–22]. In one published study of immune responses to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine in 7- to 12-year-old children perinatally infected with HIV, seroconversion rates were excellent but immune titers to HPV-6 and HPV-18 were 30%–50% lower than those of controls [23].
Data are needed regarding the immunogenicity and safety of HPV vaccines in HIV-infected adolescent and young adult women to inform recommendations for vaccination in these individuals. Therefore, we designed a study to determine (1) the immunogenicity of the HPV-6, -11, -16, -18 vaccine and persistence of the immune response in HIV-infected young women, and (2) whether the HPV-6, -11, -16, -18 vaccine is well tolerated and safe in this population.
METHODS
Participants
This was a phase 2, open-label, multicenter trial to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of an HPV-6, -11, -16, -18 vaccine (Gardasil, Merck & Co, Inc, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey) in HIV-infected young women aged 16–23 years, conducted from July 2008 to February 2011. The trial was conducted through the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions (ATN); study subjects were recruited from 14 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico. The institutional review board for each participating site approved the study. Written informed consent was obtained for all participants ≥18 years of age, and participant assent and parent or guardian permission were obtained for participants <18 years of age.
Two groups of young women were recruited. Participants in group A were either naive to antiretroviral therapy (ART) or had not received ART for at least the 6 months prior to study entry (non-ART group), and those in group B had received ART for at least 6 months at the time of study entry, with 2 HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA plasma loads <400 copies/mL (ART group). All participants had acquired HIV through sexual exposure except one, who acquired HIV through a blood transfusion. Subjects were excluded if they had received an HPV vaccine; had recently received any vaccine, immune globulin, blood, or plasma products; were taking medications that could affect immune response; had a history of recent anogenital warts or any history of moderate or severe cervical dysplasia; were pregnant; reported active substance use or dependence; had an active opportunistic or serious bacterial infection; had thrombocytopenia or a coagulation disorder; or had a known or suspected malignancy or immune system disorder other than HIV.
Procedures
The vaccine administered was the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, which consists of 4 recombinant HPV type-specific vaccine-like particles, comprised of the L1 major capsid proteins of HPV-6, -11, -16, and -18. Vaccine doses were administered at day 1, week 8, and week 24 after documentation of a negative pregnancy test. HIV-1 RNA load, CD4+ T-cell count (CD4), complete blood count, and chemistry profile were obtained at each visit (day 1 and weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 28, and 48). Serologic testing for HPV-6, -11, -16, and -18 was done at day 1, week 24 (before dose 3), week 28 (4 weeks after dose 3), and week 48 (24 weeks after dose 3). Serology was measured using a competitive Luminex-based immunoassay (developed by Merck Research Laboratories) [24]. A clinician used a sterile Dacron swab to collect cervicovaginal samples for HPV DNA testing at day 1 and weeks 24 and 48 using a standardized method, during a speculum examination or using a blind vaginal swab. Swabs were tested for HPV DNA using an MY09/11 assay and dot blot method to detect 41 HPV types [25].
Solicitation of signs and symptoms to assess safety and tolerability were conducted by study staff 20 minutes, 3 days, and 7 days after each vaccine dose. Participants also recorded adverse events (AEs) daily for the first 7 days after each vaccine dose, using a vaccine report card or a telephone response system; these were reviewed and documented by study staff. The ATN's Supplemental Toxicity Table for Vaccine-Related Toxicities and Toxicity Table for Grading Severity of Adolescent Adverse Experiences (www.atnonline.org) were used to grade all clinical AEs and aberrant laboratory values, using a grading system of 1 to 4 (1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe, 4 = life-threatening). Toxicities were considered potentially vaccine associated if their onset occurred within 7 days after receipt of a study vaccine. In addition, any severe and unexplained toxicity was evaluated for possible vaccine association, regardless of the interval since vaccination. All toxicities and abnormal laboratory tests that were grade 3 or 4 and occurred between receipt of the first vaccine dose until 4 weeks after receipt of the third vaccine dose were reported to the protocol team within 48 hours for further assessment and monitoring. The protocol team made the final determination regarding association of an AE with the vaccine during monthly team calls. An independent data and safety monitoring board monitored the trial for safety.
Statistical Analyses
We examined baseline demographic characteristics, behaviors, type-specific HPV serostatus, and type-specific cervicovaginal HPV DNA status by study group (non-ART and ART). The main outcome measures were geometric mean titers (GMTs, expressed as milli-Merck units per milliliter [mMU/mL]) and seroconversion rates for HPV-6, -11, -16, and -18, 4 weeks after vaccine dose 3. GMTs were analyzed as continuous variables. Seroconversion was defined, as in the clinical trials of the quadrivalent vaccine, as the proportion of participants with GMTs of ≥20, 16, 20, and 24 mMU/mL to HPV-6, -11, -16, and -18, respectively, and were analyzed as a series of dichotomous variables. Analyses were conducted separately for each of the 4 type-specific antibodies. Subjects seropositive or HPV DNA positive for each vaccine-type HPV at baseline were excluded from the analysis for that HPV type, and immunogenicity was measured in the per protocol population, that is, among participants who completed all 3 vaccine doses within the specified time frames. GMTs and seroconversion rates of participants vs an HIV-uninfected historical comparison group were compared using 1-sample t tests (with the null value of GMTs from the comparison group) and Fisher exact tests, respectively. The comparison group was comprised of healthy young women (n = 267) participating in a study of HPV vaccine immunogenicity [26], and who were chosen for comparison to our subjects because their age range (16–23 years) was the same, and immunogenicity is strongly associated with age. GMTs and seroconversion rates were also compared by group (non-ART vs ART), using a Kruskal-Wallis test and Fisher exact test, respectively. We assessed persistence of the immune response by comparing GMTs and seroconversion rates 4 and 24 weeks after vaccine dose 3. Finally, we examined whether GMTs and seroconversion rates differed by participant HIV RNA load and CD4 at baseline.
All participants who received at least 1 vaccine dose were included in the safety analysis. Safety and tolerability were assessed by determining the proportion of subjects experiencing local, systemic, or laboratory AEs, the proportion experiencing a grade 3 or 4 AE, and the relationship of any grade 3 or 4 AEs to study vaccine.
RESULTS
Of the 109 subjects screened for eligibility, 101 were determined to be eligible and 2 were subsequently unable to be contacted. Thus, 99 subjects were enrolled: 69 in the non-ART group and 30 in the ART group. Of these, 79 completed the study, and the remaining subjects were either discontinued from the study vaccine early but completed the follow-up visits or were prematurely discontinued from the study (Figure 1). Of the 99 subjects enrolled, 4 (4.0%) received 1 vaccine dose, 7 (7.1%) received 2 doses, 88 (88.9%) received 3 doses, and 76 (76.8%) received 3 doses within the scheduled time frames.
Figure 1.
CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) diagram. Participants in group A were either naive to antiretroviral therapy (ART) or had not received ART for at least the 6 months prior to study entry, and those in group B had received ART for at least 6 months at the time of study entry, with 2 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 plasma RNA loads <400 copies/mL. Abbreviations: AIN, anal intraepithelial neoplasia; ART, antiretroviral therapy; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; HPV, human papillomavirus; VAIN, vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia; VIN, vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia.
Information on subjects' baseline demographic, immunologic, and virologic characteristics, sexual behaviors, and sexually transmitted infection history have been previously published [27]. In brief, subjects' mean age was 21.4 years, and 79 (79%) described themselves as black or African-American, 10 (10.1%) as white, and 16 (16.2%) as Hispanic. Participants generally did not have advanced HIV infection: 85 (85.9%) had a CD4 count ≥350 cells/mm3 (Table 1). Forty participants (40.4%) had an HIV RNA load <400 copies/mL. Thirty-six (37.5%) reported >10 lifetime male sexual partners and 72 (72.7%) reported having used a condom during last sexual intercourse with their main partner. Participants in the non-ART and ART groups did not differ significantly by age, race, ethnicity, or CD4 (all P values >.05). Those in the ART group vs the non-ART group were more likely to have an HIV RNA load <400 copies/mL (93.3% vs 17.4%, P < .0001).
Table 1.
Summary of HIV Characteristics, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Serostatus by HPV Type, and HPV DNA Status by HPV Type, in the Non–Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) and ART Groups at Baseline (N = 99)
| Characteristic | Non-ART Group (n = 69) |
ART Group (n = 30) |
Overall (N = 99) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. (%) | Mean (SD) | No. (%) | Mean (SD) | No. (%) | Mean (SD) | |
| HIV characteristics | ||||||
| Length of HIV infection, y | 2.8 (2.1) | 2.9 (2.2) | 2.8 (2.1) | |||
| CD4+ count, cells/mm3, numeric | 632.0 (289.5) | 570.4 (221.6) | 613.3 (271.1) | |||
| CD4+ count, cells/mm3, categorical | ||||||
| <200 | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.3) | 1 (1.0) | |||
| 200–349 | 8 (11.6) | 5 (16.7) | 13 (13.1) | |||
| ≥350 | 61 (88.4) | 24 (80.0) | 85 (85.9) | |||
| Viral load, copies/mL, numeric | 13 774.8 (54 424.3) | 2996.3 (4627.9) | 13 284.9 (53 207.9) | |||
| Viral load, copies/mL, categorical | ||||||
| <400 | 12 (17.4) | 28 (93.3) | 40 (40.4) | |||
| 400–999 | 16 (23.2) | 1 (3.3) | 17 (17.2) | |||
| 1000–9999 | 30 (43.5) | 1 (3.3) | 31 (31.3) | |||
| 10 000–99 999 | 9 (13.0) | 0 | 9 (9.1) | |||
| ≥100 000 | 2 (2.9) | 0 | 2 (2.0) | |||
| HPV serostatus and HPV DNA status | ||||||
| HPV-6 | ||||||
| Seronegative, HPV DNA negative | 28 (40.6) | 14 (46.7) | 42 (42.4) | |||
| Seronegative, HPV DNA positive | 1 (1.4) | 0 | 1 (1.0) | |||
| Seropositive, HPV DNA negative | 39 (56.5) | 16 (53.3) | 55 (55.6) | |||
| Seropositive, HPV DNA positive | 1 (1.4) | 0 | 1 (1.0) | |||
| HPV-11 | ||||||
| Seronegative, HPV DNA negative | 47 (68.1) | 20 (66.7) | 67 (67.7) | |||
| Seronegative, HPV DNA positive | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Seropositive, HPV DNA negative | 21 (30.4) | 10 (33.3) | 31 (31.3) | |||
| Seropositive, HPV DNA positive | 1 (1.4) | 0 | 1 (1.0) | |||
| HPV-16 | ||||||
| Seronegative, HPV DNA negative | 40 (58.0) | 15 (50.0) | 55 (55.6) | |||
| Seronegative, HPV DNA positive | 1 (1.4) | 2 (6.7) | 3 (3.0) | |||
| Seropositive, HPV DNA negative | 21 (30.4) | 11 (36.7) | 32 (32.3) | |||
| Seropositive, HPV DNA positive | 7 (10.1) | 2 (6.7) | 9 (9.1) | |||
| HPV-18 | ||||||
| Seronegative, HPV DNA negative | 54 (78.3) | 19 (63.3) | 73 (73.7) | |||
| Seronegative, HPV DNA positive | 3 (4.3) | 1 (3.3) | 4 (4.0) | |||
| Seropositive, HPV DNA negative | 12 (17.4) | 9 (30.0) | 21 (21.2) | |||
| Seropositive, HPV DNA positive | 0 | 1 (3.3) | 1 (1.0) | |||
| HPV-16 and -18 | ||||||
| Both seronegative and HPV DNA negative | 35 (50.7) | 10 (33.3) | 45 (45.5) | |||
| Both seronegative and HPV DNA positive | 1 (1.4) | 0 | 1 (1.0) | |||
| Both seropositive and HPV DNA negative | 6 (8.7) | 3 (10.0) | 9 (9.1) | |||
| Both seropositive and HPV DNA positive | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| HPV-6, -11, -16, and -18 | ||||||
| All seronegative and HPV DNA negative | 18 (26.1) | 5 (16.7) | 23 (23.2) | |||
| All seronegative and HPV DNA positive | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| All seropositive and HPV DNA negative | 4 (5.8) | 1 (3.3) | 5 (5.1) | |||
| All seropositive and HPV DNA positive | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
Abbreviations: ART, antiretroviral therapy; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; HPV, human papillomavirus; SD, standard deviation.
A summary of HPV serostatus and HPV DNA status at baseline by HPV type and study group is shown in Table 1 and described in detail in a previous paper [28]. Overall, 42% were both seronegative and HPV DNA negative for HPV-6, 68% for HPV-11, 56% for HPV-16, 74% for HPV-18, 46% for both HPV-16 and -18, and 23% for all 4 vaccine types.
GMTs 4 weeks after vaccine dose 3 were approximately twice as high in the ART group than the non-ART group for all 4 HPV types; these differences were significant for HPV-16 and HPV-18 (Table 2). GMTs did not differ for any of the 4 HPV types in the ART group participants vs the historical comparison group. In contrast, GMTs were significantly lower in the non-ART group participants vs the historical comparison group for HPV-16 (2393 vs 3892 mMU/mL, P = .012) and HPV-18 (463 vs 801 mMU/mL, P = .003).
Table 2.
Geometric Mean Titers and Seroconversion Rates for Participants and a Historical Comparison Group Who Were Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Negative and Seronegative for Vaccine-Type HPV, 4 Weeks After HPV Vaccine Dose 3
| HPV Type | GMTs (mMU/mL) |
P Value for Comparisons |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-ART Group | ART Group | All (Non-ART and ART Groups) | Comparison Groupa | Non-ART vs Comparison Groupb | ART vs Comparison Groupb | All vs Comparison Groupb | Non-ART vs ART Groupc | |
| HPV-6 (n = 31)d | ||||||||
| Mean (95% CI) | 658 (313–1002) | 1294 (334–2255) | 870 (495–1245) | 582 (527–643) | .65 | .13 | .13 | .15 |
| Median (range) | 390 (22–2721) | 736 (159–3891) | 437 (22–3891) | N/A | ||||
| HPV-11 (n = 52)d | ||||||||
| Mean (95% CI) | 727 (485–970) | 1522 (526–2518) | 982 (630–1334) | 697 (618–785) | .80 | .10 | .11 | .28 |
| Median (range) | 614 (8–3091) | 786 (109–5847) | 652 (8–5847) | N/A | ||||
| HPV-16 (n = 42)d | ||||||||
| Mean (95% CI) | 2393 (1252–3534) | 5046 (2338–7755) | 3234 (2077–4391) | 3892 (3324–4558) | .012 | .37 | .26 | .014 |
| Median (range) | 1391 (11–11 559) | 4237 (502–15 269) | 1770 (11–15 269) | N/A | ||||
| HPV-18 (n = 57)d | ||||||||
| Mean (95% CI) | 463 (247–679) | 979 (302–1655) | 613 (369–857) | 801 (694–925) | .003 | .58 | .13 | .021 |
| Median (range) | 229 (10–2898) | 646 (41–5319) | 346 (10–5319) | N/A | ||||
| HPV Type | Participants who Seroconverted, % |
P Value for Comparisons |
||||||
| Non-ART Group | ART Group | All (Non-ART and ART Groups) | Comparison Groupa | Non-ART vs Comparison Groupe | ART vs Comparison Groupe | All vs Comparison Groupe | Non-ART vs ART Groupf | |
| HPV-6 (n = 31)d | ||||||||
| Responder (≥20 mMU/mL) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | …g | …g | …g | …g |
| 95% CI of response rate | 83.2–100.0 | 69.2–100.0 | 88.4–100.0 | N/A | ||||
| HPV-11 (n = 52)d | ||||||||
| Responder (≥16 mMU/mL) | 97.1 | 100.0 | 98.0 | 100.0 | .14 | …g | .19 | 1.0 |
| 95% CI of response rate | 84.7–99.9 | 79.4–100.0 | 89.4–99.9 | N/A | ||||
| HPV-16 (n = 42)d | ||||||||
| Responder (≥20 mMU/mL) | 96.4 | 100.0 | 97.6 | 100.0 | .13 | …g | .17 | 1.0 |
| 95% CI of response rate | 81.7–99.9 | 75.3–100.0 | 87.1–99.9 | N/A | ||||
| HPV-18 (n = 57)d | ||||||||
| Responder (≥24 mMU/mL) | 92.3 | 100.0 | 94.5 | 100.0 | .003 | …g | .008 | .55 |
| 95% CI of response rate | 79.1–98.4 | 79.4–100.0 | 84.9–98.9 | N/A | ||||
Abbreviations: ART, antiretroviral therapy; CI, confidence interval; GMTs, geometric mean titers; HPV, human papillomavirus; mMu/mL, milli-Merck units per milliliter; N/A, not available.
a Data used for these analyses were GMTs and seroconversion rates for comparison group participants who were both HPV DNA negative and seronegative for the 4 vaccine-type HPVs: n = 208 for HPV-6, n = 208 for HPV-11, n = 194 for HPV-16, and n = 219 for HPV-18. The total number of participants in the comparison group was 276.
b Comparison of the GMTs in the non-ART group participants vs the null value of the GMTs of the historical comparison group, ART group participants vs the historical comparison group, and all participants vs the historical comparison group, using a 1-sample t test.
c Comparison of GMTs in the non-ART vs the ART group participants, using a Kruskal-Wallis test.
d Data used for these analyses were GMTs and seroconversion rates for study participants who were both HPV DNA negative and seronegative for the 4 vaccine-type HPVs and had received all 3 vaccine doses within the specified time frames. The numbers in this table represent the number of participants who were HPV DNA negative and seronegative for each HPV type. The total number of study participants was 99, the number who received 3 doses was 88, and the number who received 3 doses within the specified time frames was 76.
e Comparison of seroconversion rates in non-ART group participants vs the historical comparison group, ART group participants vs the comparison group, and all participants vs the comparison group, using a Fisher exact test.
f Comparison of seroconversion rates in the non-ART vs the ART group participants, using Fisher exact test.
g Empty cells indicate that a P value was not calculated, as the seroconversion rates in the comparison groups were identical.
Seroconversion rates were 100% for all 4 HPV types among the ART group participants, and ranged from 92.3% (for HPV-18) to 100.0% (for HPV-6) for the non-ART group participants; differences between the non-ART and ART groups were not statistically significant (Table 2). Seroconversion rates were significantly lower in the non-ART group participants vs the historical comparison group for HPV-18 only (P = .003). The 3 participants who did not seroconvert for HPV-18 did seroconvert for HPV-16.
As shown in Figure 2, GMTs peaked 4 weeks after vaccine dose 3 (week 28) and then declined by 24 weeks after vaccine dose 3 (week 48). GMTs declined significantly (P ≤ .0005) for all 4 vaccine-type HPVs among non-ART and ART group participants. Seroconversion rates at week 48 remained at 100% for HPV-6, HPV-11, and HPV-16 among ART group participants (data not shown); the seroconversion rate fell from 100% to 86.7% for HPV-18. Seroconversion rates did not decline for HPV-6, HPV-11, or HPV-16 among the non-ART group participants, but declined from 92.3% to 67.6% for HPV-18. The difference in seroconversion rates between week 28 and week 48 for all participants was statistically significant only for HPV-18 (P = .0009).
Figure 2.
Geometric mean titers by study week. Abbreviations: HPV, human papillomavirus; mMU, milli-Merck units.
Immune responses at week 28 and week 48 differed by HIV RNA load, but not by CD4, at baseline. Those with an RNA load <400 vs ≥400 had higher GMTs 4 weeks after vaccine dose 3 for all 4 vaccine types, although the differences only reached statistical significance for HPV-11 (P = .03) at 28 weeks. Seroconversion rates were also higher for those with a viral load <400 vs ≥400, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.
The quadrivalent HPV vaccine was generally well tolerated (Table 3). Almost half of participants (48.5%) reported at least 1 local or systemic reaction for vaccine doses 1, 2, and 3 combined. A total of 26.3% of participants reported at least 1 local AE. The most common was pain, reported by 26.3% of participants: this was rated as mild (grade 1) by all participants except 1, who rated it moderate (grade 2). A total of 12.1% of participants reported fever. The highest fever was grade 2 (38.7°C–39.3°C), reported by 1 participant; the remainder had a temperature of ≤38.6°C. A total of 24.2% of participants reported another systemic reaction; the most common was headache (15.2%). One participant reported a severe systemic AE (grade 3), for fatigue. No severe or life-threatening (grade 3 or 4) laboratory AEs were evaluated by the team as definitely, probably, or possibly related to the vaccine. Although safety assessments differed in these subjects vs the historical comparison group, which precluded statistical comparisons, a general comparison demonstrated that the vaccine was as well tolerated—and in some cases better tolerated—in the HIV-infected subjects. Rates of AEs in subjects vs the historical comparison group were as follows: pain (26.3% vs 85.3%), erythema (0% vs 26.8%), rash (0% vs 1.1%), fever (12.1% vs 11.0%), headache (15.2% vs 40.4%), and fatigue (9.1% vs 5.5%).
Table 3.
Subjects Reporting at Least 1 Adverse Event of Any Grade (1–4), for Vaccine Doses 1, 2, and 3 Combined (N = 99)
| Adverse Event | Subjects With ≥1 AE Post–Vaccine Dose 1, No. (%) | Subjects With ≥1 AE Post–Vaccine Dose 2, No. (%) | Subjects With ≥1 AE Post–Vaccine Dose 3, No. (%) | Subjects With ≥1 AE Across All Vaccine Doses, No. (%) | Highest Grade AE Across All Vaccine Doses, Grade (No.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local reactions | |||||
| Pain | 4 (4.0) | 16 (16.8) | 13 (14.8) | 26 (26.3) | 2 (1) |
| Induration | 0 | 1 (1.1) | 1 (1.1) | 2 (2.0) | 2 (2) |
| Erythema | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | … |
| Rash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | … |
| Abscess | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | … |
| Total local reactions | 4 (4.0) | 16 (16.8) | 13 (14.8) | 26 (26.3) | 2 (3) |
| Fever | 7 (7.1) | 6 (6.3) | 10 (11.4) | 12 (12.1) | 2 (1) |
| Other systemic reactions | |||||
| Headache | 8 (8.1) | 4 (4.2) | 4 (4.5) | 15 (15.2) | 2 (4) |
| Fatigue | 6 (6.1) | 2 (2.1) | 2 (2.3) | 9 (9.1) | 3 (1) |
| Malaise | 4 (4.0) | 1 (1.1) | 3 (3.4) | 8 (8.1) | 2 (1) |
| Anorexia | 3 (3.0) | 0 | 1 (1.1) | 4 (4.0) | 2 (1) |
| Arthralgia/myalgia | 2 (2.0) | 2 (2.1) | 1 (1.1) | 4 (4.0) | 2 (4) |
| Weakness | 2 (2.0) | 0 | 1 (1.1) | 3 (3.0) | 2 (1) |
| Seizures | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | … |
| Allergic reactions (rash or respiratory) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | … |
| Behavior changes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | … |
| Total systemic reactions | 15 (15.2) | 8 (8.4) | 8 (9.1) | 24 (24.2) | 3 (1) |
| Total local and systemic reactions | 24 (24.2) | 26 (26.3) | 25 (25.3) | 48 (48.5) | 3 (1) |
Abbreviation: AE, adverse event.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we examined the immunogenicity and safety of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine in HIV-infected young women. Immune responses were robust among those who were HPV DNA and HPV seronegative for vaccine-type HPVs at the time of vaccination and received all 3 vaccine doses within specified timeframes. Among HIV-infected young women on ART, GMTs and seroconversion rates did not differ significantly from those of a historical comparison group of HIV-uninfected young women in the same age range. These findings suggest that treatment with ART could have a positive influence on response to vaccination, and provide support for current recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to vaccinate HIV-infected individuals [11]. Among young women not on ART, 3.6% did not seroconvert to HPV-16, 7.7% did not seroconvert to HPV-18, and GMTs for both HPV-16 and HPV-18 were significantly lower than those of the historical comparison group. Research is needed to examine the mechanisms for these lower response rates and to determine whether additional or higher doses of the vaccine could facilitate seroconversion, as was shown in a study of hepatitis B vaccine in HIV-infected individuals [29]. Nevertheless, most of the young women not on ART generated robust immune responses to vaccination that were shown in previous studies to be protective against persistent HPV infection and the development of HPV-related genital lesions, suggesting that even HIV-infected women not on ART may benefit from vaccination [12–17].
GMTs declined for all 4 vaccine-type HPVs by 48 weeks after vaccine initiation, consistent with clinical trials of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine in healthy women. For most participants, however, GMTs at 48 weeks were still higher than after natural infection. Seroconversion rates declined significantly only for HPV-18. Long-term studies are needed to determine the duration of the immune response and the correlation between immune response and vaccine efficacy in HIV-infected young women. In a previous study of HIV-uninfected women in which declines in seropositivity were also greater for HPV-18 compared to other types, there were no breakthrough cases of HPV-18–related cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in quadrivalent vaccine recipients [30]. Furthermore, in prior studies of HPV vaccines, reexposure to the antigen resulted in a robust anamnestic response [26, 31]; such “boosting” through natural infection may translate to long-term efficacy.
Vaccines may have different safety profiles in HIV-infected vs HIV-uninfected individuals [20, 32–34]. In this study, the quadrivalent HPV vaccine was generally safe and well tolerated; only 1 grade 3 adverse event (fatigue) was reported. The AE rates reported by these participants were generally lower than those in published studies.
There are several limitations to this study. The relatively small number of participants limits the ability to make definitive conclusions about the safety and tolerability of the vaccine. In addition, these were generally healthy young women, with relatively high CD4, precluding the ability to examine the impact of a low CD4 and advanced HIV infection on immune response to vaccination. We were also unable to examine differences in immune response between women in the non-ART group who were ART naive vs those who had previously taken ART, because almost 90% of them had a baseline CD4 cell count ≥350 cells/mm3 and >92% seroconverted after vaccination. Furthermore, we compared immune responses of participants to a historical comparison group, precluding a direct comparison of AE rates because assessment of AEs differed in the 2 groups. Comparison group participants also differed from study participants in a number of ways that could impact immune response to vaccination. For example, although the age range was identical, the mean age of the comparison participants was approximately 1 year younger than those of the study participants. They also differed demographically from study participants and had had relatively few sexual partners (median, 2; range, 0–4). Furthermore, the results may not be generalizable to all young women with HIV. However, the clinical sites in the ATN are generally the largest of the clinics offering comprehensive services to HIV-positive youth in the United States, and therefore should be representative of youth in care. Finally, follow-up in our study was limited to 48 weeks, and we did not examine efficacy.
In conclusion, these data demonstrate that the quadrivalent HPV vaccine was immunogenic and was generally safe and well tolerated in HIV-infected adolescent and young adult women, supporting current recommendations to vaccinate HIV-infected individuals. Some young women not on ART had less robust immune responses than those on ART, suggesting that ART may improve response to vaccination in HIV-infected young women. Further studies are needed to examine factors predicting seroconversion and long-term efficacy in HIV-infected individuals.
Notes
Disclaimer. The opinions and views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Merck & Co, Inc, or the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).
Financial support. This work was supported by AIDS Interventions (ATN) from the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers U01 HD 040533 and U01 HD 040474) through the NICHD (to B. G. K., C. W.), with supplemental funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (N. Borek) and the National Institute of Mental Health (P. Brouwers, S. Allison). The study was scientifically reviewed by the ATN's Therapeutic Leadership Group. ATN-affiliated investigators and program staff supervised the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript. Network, scientific, and logistical support was provided by the ATN Coordinating Center (C. Wilson, C. Partlow) at The University of Alabama at Birmingham. Network operations and analytic support was provided by the ATN Data and Operations Center at Westat, Inc (J. Korelitz, B. Driver). The following ATN sites participated in this study: Children's National Medical Center (D'Angelo, Hagler, Trexler); Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Douglas, Tanney, DiBenedetto); John H. Stroger Jr Hospital of Cook County and the Ruth M. Rothstein CORE Center (Martinez, Bojan, Jackson, Henry-Reid); University of Puerto Rico (Febo, Ayala-Flores, Fuentes-Gomez); Montefiore Medical Center (Futterman, Enriquez-Bruce, Campos); Tulane University Health Sciences Center (Abdalian, Kozina, Baker); University of Miami School of Medicine (Friedman, Maturo, Major-Wilson); Children's Diagnostic and Treatment Center (Puga, Leonard, Inman); St Jude's Children's Research Hospital (Flynn, Dillard); Children's Memorial (Garofalo, Brennan, Flanagan); University of South Florida, Tampa (Emmanuel, Straub, Lujan-Zilberman, Julian, Rebolledo); Children's Hospital of Los Angeles (Belzer, Flores, Tucker); Mount Sinai Medical Center (Steever, Geiger); and University of Maryland (Peralta, Gorle).
In addition, R. Burk utilized core facilities of the Einstein-Montefiore Center for AIDS funded by the National Institutes of Health (AI-51519) and the Einstein Cancer Research Center (grant number P30CA013330) from the National Cancer Institute. Two of the sites utilized their General Clinical Research Center/Pediatric Clinical Research Center for the study. The centers were supported by grants from the General Clinical Research Center Program of the National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services as follows: Children's National Medical Center (grant number M01RR020359) and University of Pennsylvania/Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (grant number NCRRUL1-RR-024134). The site at Tulane University Health Sciences Center utilized its Clinical and Translational Research Center for the study; the center was supported in whole or in part by funds provided through the Louisiana Board of Regents RC/EEP (grant number RC/EEP–06). Vaccine and HPV GMTs were provided through the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Merck & Co, Inc.
Potential conflicts of interest. J. A. K. and B. R. are the co-chairs of another HPV vaccine clinical trial in HIV-positive individuals, for which Merck & Co, Inc, is providing vaccine and immunogenicity titers. J. A. K. chaired a grant review committee for the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine evaluating public health demonstration project proposals to improve adolescent vaccination; grant funding for this program was from Merck. K. E. S. is a member of the Merck HIV Advisory Board; has served as a consultant to Merck; and is currently chairing the HIV external Scientific Advisory Board. All other authors report no potential conflicts.
All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
References
- 1.Ellerbrock TV, Chiasson MA, Bush TJ, et al. Incidence of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions in HIV-infected women. JAMA. 2000;283:1031–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.8.1031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hawes SE, Critchlow CW, Faye Niang MA, et al. Increased risk of high-grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions and invasive cervical cancer among African women with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 and 2 infections. J Infect Dis. 2003;188:555–63. doi: 10.1086/376996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Guiguet M, Boue F, Cadranel J, Lang JM, Rosenthal E, Costagliola D. Effect of immunodeficiency, HIV viral load, and antiretroviral therapy on the risk of individual malignancies (FHDH-ANRS CO4): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:1152–9. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70282-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Abraham AG, Strickler HD, Jing Y, et al. Invasive cervical cancer risk among HIV-infected women: a North American multi-cohort collaboration prospective study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;62:405–13. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31828177d7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Tanon A, Jaquet A, Ekouevi DK, et al. The spectrum of cancers in West Africa: associations with human immunodeficiency virus. PLoS One. 2012;7:e48108. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Massad LS, Fazzari MJ, Anastos K, et al. Outcomes after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia among women with HIV. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2007;11:90–7. doi: 10.1097/01.lgt.0000245038.06977.a7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Adam Y, van Gelderen CJ, de Bruyn G, McIntyre JA, Turton DA, Martinson NA. Predictors of persistent cytologic abnormalities after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in Soweto, South Africa: a cohort study in a HIV high prevalence population. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:211. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-8-211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Reimers LL, Sotardi S, Daniel D, et al. Outcomes after an excisional procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in HIV-infected women. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:92–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.06.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.FDA licensure of bivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV2, Cervarix) for use in females and updated HPV vaccination recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59:626–9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Recommendations on the use of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in males—Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60:1705–8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Bridges CB, Woods L, Coyne-Beasley T. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended immunization schedule for adults aged 19 years and older—United States, 2013. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2013;62(suppl 1):9–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA, et al. High sustained efficacy of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus types 6/11/16/18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine through 5 years of follow-up. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:1459–66. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Paavonen J, Jenkins D, Bosch FX, et al. Efficacy of a prophylactic adjuvanted bivalent L1 virus-like-particle vaccine against infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: an interim analysis of a phase III double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007;369:2161–70. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60946-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Garland SM, Hernandez-Avila M, Wheeler CM, et al. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent anogenital diseases. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1928–43. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa061760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.FUTURE II Study Group. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1915–27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa061741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Koutsky LA. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1915–27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa061741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Paavonen J. Efficacy of a quadrivalent HPV (types 6/11/16/18) L1 virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine against vaginal and vulvar pre-cancerous lesions: a combined analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5011. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Neilsen GA, Bodsworth NJ, Watts N. Response to hepatitis A vaccination in human immunodeficiency virus-infected and -uninfected homosexual men. J Infect Dis. 1997;176:1064–7. doi: 10.1086/516512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Amendola A, Tanzi E, Zappa A, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in HIV-1 infected former drug users. Vaccine. 2002;20:3720–4. doi: 10.1016/s0264-410x(02)00357-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wallace MR, Brandt CJ, Earhart KC, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated hepatitis A vaccine among HIV-infected subjects. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:1207–13. doi: 10.1086/424666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Obaro SK, Pugatch D, Luzuriaga K. Immunogenicity and efficacy of childhood vaccines in HIV-1-infected children. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004;4:510–8. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(04)01106-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bickel M, Wieters I, Khaykin P, et al. Low rate of seroconversion after vaccination with a split virion, adjuvanted pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine in HIV-1-infected patients. AIDS. 2010;24:F31–5. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283398da1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Levin MJ, Moscicki AB, Song LY, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) vaccine in HIV-infected children 7 to 12 years old. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55:197–204. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181de8d26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Opalka D, Lachman CE, MacMullen SA, et al. Simultaneous quantitation of antibodies to neutralizing epitopes on virus-like particles for human papillomavirus types 6, 11, 16, and 18 by a multiplexed luminex assay. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2003;10:108–15. doi: 10.1128/CDLI.10.1.108-115.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Castle PE, Schiffman M, Gravitt PE, et al. Comparisons of HPV DNA detection by MY09/11 PCR methods. J Med Virol. 2002;68:417–23. doi: 10.1002/jmv.10220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Villa LL, Ault KA, Giuliano AR, et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus types 6, 11, 16, and 18. Vaccine. 2006;24:5571–83. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.04.068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kahn JA, Xu J, Zimet GD, et al. Risk perceptions after human papillomavirus vaccination in HIV-infected adolescents and young adult women. J Adolesc Health. 2012;50:464–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.09.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kahn JA, Burk RD, Squires KE, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for HPV in HIV-positive young women receiving their first HPV vaccination. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012;61:390–9. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182676fe3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Fonseca MO, Pang LW, de Paula Cavalheiro N, Barone AA, Heloisa Lopes M. Randomized trial of recombinant hepatitis B vaccine in HIV-infected adult patients comparing a standard dose to a double dose. Vaccine. 2005;23:2902–8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.11.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA, et al. Prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in young women: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II efficacy trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:271–8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70101-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Olsson SE, Villa LL, Costa RL, et al. Induction of immune memory following administration of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6/11/16/18 L1 virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine. Vaccine. 2007;25:4931–9. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.03.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.O'Brien WA, Grovit-Ferbas K, Namazi A, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus-type 1 replication can be increased in peripheral blood of seropositive patients after influenza vaccination. Blood. 1995;86:1082–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Brichacek B, Swindells S, Janoff EN, Pirruccello S, Stevenson M. Increased plasma human immunodeficiency virus type 1 burden following antigenic challenge with pneumococcal vaccine. J Infect Dis. 1996;174:1191–9. doi: 10.1093/infdis/174.6.1191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Staprans SI, Hamilton BL, Follansbee SE, et al. Activation of virus replication after vaccination of HIV-1-infected individuals. J Exp Med. 1995;182:1727–37. doi: 10.1084/jem.182.6.1727. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]