4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Chlamydia trachomatis, herpes simplex virus 2, and human T-cell lymphotrophic virus type 1 are not associated with grade of cervical neoplasia in Jamaican colposcopy patients

Journal

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
Volume 30, Issue 7, Pages 575-580

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00007435-200307000-00009

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA13330] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A few recent studies have suggested that other sexually transmitted infections may increase the likelihood of a human papillomavirus (HPV) infection progressing to high-grade cervical neoplasia and cancer. Goal. The goal was to assess whether exposures to Chlamydia trachomatis, human T-cell lymphotrophic virus type 1 (HTLV-I), and/or human simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) are greater in colposcopy patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+) than in patients with low-grade cervical neoplasia (CIN1). Study Design: Sequential patients (n = 447) attending a colposcopy clinic in Kingston, Jamaica, a country with high cervical cancer rates and high HTLV-I prevalence, were tested for (1) HPV DNA by L1 consensus primer (MY09/11) pollymerase chain reaction assays, (2) C trachomatis DNA by ligase chain reaction, (3) C trachomatis antibodies by both microimmunofluorescence and a peptide (VS4) enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), (4) HTLV-I antibodies by ELISA confirmed by western blotting, and (5) HSV-2 antibodies by a recombinant HSV-2-specific ELISA. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated with use of multinormal logistic regression models. Results: HPV DNA detection was associated with grade of cervical neoplasia but other evaluated sexually transmitted infections were not. Conclusions: HTLV-I, C trachomatis, and/or HSV-2 were not associated with severity of cervical neoplasia in Jamaican women.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available