4.7 Article

Prevalence and Risk of Penile Human Papillomavirus Infection: Evidence From The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013-2014

Journal

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 64, Issue 10, Pages 1360-1366

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix159

Keywords

prevalence; human papillomavirus; penile; HPV

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The epidemiology of penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is not well understood. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of penile HPV infection in the United States. Methods. We analyzed a nationally representative sample of civilian noninstitutionalized US men from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2014. Penile swab samples were collected from men aged 18-59 years. For detection of HPV types, a Roche Linear Array test was performed. We used NHANES sampling weights to estimate the population prevalence of penile HPV infection. Results. The overall prevalence of any HPV infection was 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41.3%-49.3%). The prevalence of any high-risk HPV types and low-risk HPV types (mutually exclusive of high-risk HPV) was 30.5% (95% CI, 28.0%-33.0%) and 14.8% (95% CI, 12.7%-17.2%), respectively. Overall HPV prevalence increased with increasing age: the prevalence was lowest among 18-to 24-year-old men (33.8%) and highest among 55- to 59-year-old men (53.4%). HPV types 16 and 18 were detected in 4.3% (95% CI, 3.2%-5.7%) and 1.7% (95% CI, 1.1%-2.6%) of men, respectively. The prevalence of any HPV infection was almost 80% among men who reported having >= 16 lifetime sexual partners and using condoms intermittently. Conclusions. Our findings indicate that penile HPV is common among men in the United States. Almost one-third of all men are infected with high-risk HPV. Prevalence of penile HPV infection increases with increasing age.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available