4.7 Article

Human papillomavirus DNA in men who have sex with men: type-specific prevalence, risk factors and implications for vaccination strategies

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 112, 期 9, 页码 1585-1593

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.90

关键词

Human papillomavirus (HPV); MSM; sexual health clinic; genitourinary medicine clinic; immunisation; cross-sectional survey

类别

资金

  1. National Institute of Health Research (NIHR)
  2. Medical Research Council (MRC)
  3. MRC [G0701757] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [G0701757] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination of girls will have relatively little effect on HPV-related disease in men who have sex with men (MSM). We determined HPV prevalence and risk factors in MSM to inform the potential effectiveness of vaccinating MSM. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 522 MSM aged 18-40 attending a London sexual health clinic who completed a computer-assisted self-interview. Urine and two swabs (anal and penile/scrotal/perianal) were collected and tested using an in-house Luminex-based HPV genotyping system. Results: Prevalence of DNA of the vaccine-preventable HPV types in ano-genital specimens of men was 87/511 (17.0%), 166/511 (32.5%) and 232/511 (45.4%) for the bivalent (HPV16/18), quadrivalent (HPV6/11/16/18) and nonavalent (HPV6/11/16/18/31/33/45/ 52/58) vaccine types, respectively. A total of 25.1% had one of the quadrivalent types, and 7.4% had 2+ types. Median age at first anal sex was 19 (IQR 17-23) and at first clinic attendance was 24 (IQR 20-27). The increase in the odds of any HPV infection per year of age was 4.7% (95% CI 1.2-8.4). Conclusions: On the basis of the current infection status, most MSM, even among a high-risk population attending a sexual health clinic, are not currently infected with the vaccine-type HPV. A targeted vaccination strategy for MSM in the UK could have substantial benefits.

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

4.7
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