4.1 Article

Human Papillomavirus Infection Among 2460 Men in Denmark: Prevalence in Relation to Age Using 2 Human Papillomavirus DNA Testing Methods

期刊

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
卷 42, 期 8, 页码 463-467

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000315

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sanofi Pasteur MSD
  2. Merck
  3. Hologic GmbH
  4. Roche Diagnostics GmBH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background It is crucial to understand the epidemiology and natural history of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in both men and women, to prevent the increasing HPV-related disease burden in men. Data on HPV prevalence among men in the general population are limited. In this cross-sectional population-based study, we aimed to estimate genital HPV infection prevalence in Danish men using 2 different test methods. Methods Penile swab samples from 2460 male employees and conscripts at military barracks in Denmark were tested for HPV DNA with the hybrid capture 2 (HC2) method, and a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay, Inno-LiPA. The overall and age- and type-specific prevalence of HPV infection with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated, and the correlation between the 2 assays was assessed. Results The overall HPV prevalence was 22.2% (95% CI, 20.6-23.9) in the HC2 test and 41.8% (95% CI, 39.9-43.8) with PCR. Of the PCR-positive samples, 50.9% were negative in the HC2 test. Of 183 PCR-positive samples that could not be genotyped (HPVX), 88.0% (95% CI, 83.2-92.7) were HC2 negative. The most prevalent types were HPV-51, HPV-16, HPV-66, HPV-53, and HPV-6. The prevalence of high-risk and low-risk HPV peaked among men aged 20 to 29 years, whereas the HPVX prevalence increased with age. Conclusions Human papillomavirus is highly prevalent in the general male population of Denmark, with HPV-16 and HPV-51 being the most prevalent. Polymerase chain reaction detects twice as many positive samples as HC2 but includes HPVX, possibly representing cutaneous HPV types found on normal genital skin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据