Search

Background: The first vaccine to prevent human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer has been licensed, and in future, vaccination may be routinely offered to 10-14 year old girls. HPV is a sexually transmitted virus and some parents may refuse consent for vaccination. Under-16s in the UK have a right to confidential sexual health care without parental consent. We investigated parents' views on making available HPV vaccination to adolescent minors at sexual health clinics without parental consent. Methods: This was a semi-qualitative analysis of views of parents of 11-12 year old school children collected as part of a population-based survey of parental attitudes to HPV vaccination in Manchester. Parents were firstly asked if they agreed that a well-informed child should be able to request vaccination at a sexual health clinic without parental consent, and secondly, to provide a reason for this answer. Ethical perspectives on adolescent autonomy provided the framework for descriptive analysis. Results: 307 parents answered the question, and of these, 244 (80%) explained their views. Parents with views consistent with support for adolescent autonomy (n = 99) wanted to encourage responsible behaviour, protect children from ill-informed or bigoted parents, and respected confidentiality and individual rights. In contrast, 97 parents insisted on being involved in decision-making. They emphasised adult responsibility for a child's health and guidance, erosion of parental rights, and respect for cultural and moral values. Other parents (n = 48) wanted clearer legal definitions governing parental rights and responsibilities or hoped for joint decision-making. Parents resistant to adolescent autonomy would be less likely to consent to future HPV vaccination, (67%) than parents supporting this principle (89%; p < 0.001). Conclusion: In the UK, the principle of adolescent autonomy is recognised and logically should include the right to HPV vaccination, but this may concern parents who would otherwise approve vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This chapter reviews the contribution of cervical cytology, what makes it successful, the management of screen positives and how technological advances may affect its use in the future. Cervical screening has saved hundreds of thousands of lives but has not been available to women in the poorest countries. In countries where wide coverage has been achieved and quality assurance is in place, incidence and death rates have fallen by over 50% even though cervical cytology is logistically complex. The management of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is very effective, but low-grade cytological abnormalities require care to avoid over-treatment. The increasing rate of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and the prospect of prophylactic vaccination will change the way cervical cytology is used, possibly giving way to HPV testing as the primary test in secondary prevention. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: With the introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination an evidence base on effective adolescent educational interventions is urgently required. We undertook formative research to develop and evaluate a film on HPV and cervical cancer prevention for school children who will be offered HPV vaccination in the UK. The main outcome measures were the number of children allowed by parents to view the film and children''s knowledge. Our results indicated that the film''s four key messages were acceptable to parents and largely understood by adolescents but these messages will need reinforcing if the full potential of a prophylactic vaccine is to be realised. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Although the risk of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is greatest in young women, women older than 25 years remain at risk. We present data from the VIVIANE study of the HPV 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in adult women after 7 years of follow-up.Methods: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, healthy women older than 25 years were enrolled (age stratified: 26-35 years, 36-45 years, and ≥46 years). Up to 15% in each age stratum had a history of HPV infection or disease. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive HPV 16/18 vaccine or aluminium hydroxide control, with an internet-based system. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or greater (CIN1+) associated with HPV 16/18. We did analyses in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy and total vaccinated cohort. Data for the combined primary endpoint in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy were considered significant when the lower limit of the 96·2% CI around the point estimate was greater than 30%. For all other endpoints and cohorts, data were considered significant when the lower limit of the 96·2% CI was greater than 0%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00294047.Findings: The first participant was enrolled on Feb 16, 2006, and the last study visit took place on Jan 29, 2014. 4407 women were in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy (n=2209 vaccine, n=2198 control) and 5747 women in the total vaccinated cohort (n=2877 vaccine, n=2870 control). At month 84, in women seronegative for the corresponding HPV type in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy, vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection or CIN1+ associated with HPV 16/18 was significant in all age groups combined (90·5%, 96·2% CI 78·6-96·5). Vaccine efficacy against HPV 16/18-related cytological abnormalities (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) and CIN1+ was also significant. We also noted significant cross-protective efficacy against 6-month persistent infection with HPV 31 (65·8%, 96·2% CI 24·9-85·8) and HPV 45 (70·7%, 96·2% CI 34·2-88·4). In the total vaccinated cohort, vaccine efficacy against CIN1+ irrespective of HPV was significant (22·9%, 96·2% CI 4·8-37·7). Serious adverse events related to vaccination occurred in five (0·2%) of 2877 women in the vaccine group and eight (0·3%) of 2870 women in the control group.Interpretation: In women older than 25 years, the HPV 16/18 vaccine continues to protect against infections, cytological abnormalities, and lesions associated with HPV 16/18 and CIN1+ irrespective of HPV type, and infection with non-vaccine types HPV 31 and HPV 45 over 7 years of follow-up.Funding: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]