4.3 Article

Anogenital Human Papillomavirus and HIV Infection in Rwandan Men Who Have Sex With Men

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002376

Keywords

MSM; anal HPV; penile HPV; HIV

Funding

  1. NCI/NIH [5U54CA19016304]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Men who have sex with men (MSM) have a high prevalence of anal and penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infections with MSM living with HIV (MSMLH) bearing the highest rates. Data on anogenital high-risk HPV (hrHPV) among MSM in Rwanda and the associated risk factors are scant. Methods: We recruited 350 self-identified MSM aged 18 years living in Kigali, Rwanda, with 300 recruited from the community and 50 from partner clinics. Anal and penile specimens from all participants were analyzed for hrHPV using the AmpFire platform. Logistic regression was used to calculate crude odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted ORs (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) as a measure of association between various factors and anal and penile hrHPV infection prevalence. Results: Anal hrHPV prevalence was 20.1%, was positively associated with having receptive anal sex with more partners (aOR: 9.21, 95% CI: 3.66 to 23.14), and was negatively associated with having insertive anal sex with more partners (aOR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.66). Penile hrHPV prevalence was 35.0%, was negatively associated with having receptive anal sex with more partners (aOR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.66), and differed significantly by HIV status, with 55.2% and 29.7% for MSMLH and HIV-negative MSM, respectively (P< 0.01). Conclusion: Penile hrHPV prevalence was higher than that of anal hrHPV and it was significantly higher in Rwandan MSMLH than in HIV-negative MSM. The prevalence of anal and penile HPV infections is likely variable at different locations in Africa, according to a number of factors including HIV status and sexual practices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available