HPV vaccine recommendation update

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the CDC  just updated their HPV vaccination recommendations to include a 9-valent vaccine (see http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6411a3.htm?s_cid=mm6411a3_e​ ). there are now 3 approved vaccines: Cervarix, a bivalent one against strains 16,18; Gardisil, a 4-valent one against 6,11,16,18; and now Gardisil-9, against 6,11,16,18,31,33,45,52,58. the 4-valent (4vHPV) and 9-valent (9vHPV) ones are licensed for use in men and women. data:

--background: in the US 64% of invasive HPV-associated cancers are attributable to strains 16 or 18, and 10% are attributable to the new strains covered in 9vHPV.
--phase III study comparing 9vHPV with 4vHPV​ in 14K females 16-26 yo found 96.7% efficacy to prevent >=CIN2 caused by the covered strains of 31,33,45,52,58 (there were very few caused by 6,11,16,18, but immunogencity against these strains was not inferior to that of 4vHPV)
--seroconversion rates against all nine strains was >99%
--safety profiles of 9vHPV and 4vHPV​ were similar, most adverse events were injection site-related (pain, swelling, erythema), though these local reactions were more common with 9vHPV (40.3% vs 29.1%). males have fewer injection-site reactions than females.
--recommendations: routinely begin at age 11-12, but can start at age 9. vaccine also recommended for females aged 13-26, males 13-21. males 22-26 may be vaccinated when MSM or immunocompromised (including HIV).
--injection intervals: the same for all 3 vaccines: minimal interval of 1-2 months between 1st and 2nd dose, then 3 months minimum between 2nd and 3rd dose but maintain 6 months between 1st and 3rd dose.  no data on the immunogenicity of <3 doses of vaccine (this should be studied, given the cost and adverse reactions to this vaccine. I have seen studies in the past looking at 2 doses of the earlier vaccines showing reasonable immunogenicity)
--not recommended in pregnancy, but no need to get a pregnancy test to give the vaccine and no intervention needed if given during pregnancy (though the CDC would like to track these patients, and it is reassuring that there were no pregnancy-related issues with the prior 2 vaccines, including 4vHPV​ which is made basically the same way)



so, seems reasonable. lots of details are remaining, such as what to do if there is a long interval between the vaccines (is there any time delay where one has to restart the process?). or what to do if the patient has already started one of the previous vaccine regimens, though in any case the CDC recommends completing the series, since all of them get the big villains (strains 16,18). but given the lack of immunogenicity studies with fewer than 3 doses of 9vHPV, it is hard to say that there is any utility of switching midstream to 9vHPV​ -- ie, there would only be 1 or 2 doses covering the new strains and is this clinically efficacious? also, the new vaccine is applicable only to those never vaccinated (ie, don't give the new vaccine if the patient has had either of the 2 other approved ones)

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more