4.7 Article

Time to clearance of human papillomavirus infection by type and human immunodeficiency virus serostatus

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 119, 期 7, 页码 1623-1629

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.22015

关键词

HIV; HPV type; papillomavirus; human; time to clearance

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA09330-22] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [5 P30 AI050410-07] Funding Source: Medline
  3. PHS HHS [U64/CCU306802, U64/CCU506831, U64/CCU106795, U64/CCU206798] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is central to cervical carcinogenesis. Certain high-risk types, such as HPV16, may be more persistent than other HPV types, and type-specific HPV persistence may differ by HIV serostatus. This study evaluated the association between HPV type and clearance of HPV infections in 522 HIV-seropositive and 279 HIV-seronegative participants in the HIV Epidemiology Research Study (HERS, United States, 1993-2000). Type-specific HPV infections were detected using MY09/MY11/HMB01-based PCR and 26 HPV type-specific probes. The estimated duration of type-specific infections was measured from the first HPV-positive visit to the first of two consecutive negative visits. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for HPV clearance were calculated using Cox models adjusted for study site and risk behavior (sexual or injection drugs). A total of 1,800 HPV infections were detected in 801 women with 4.4 years median follow-up. HRs for clearance of HPV16 and related types versus low-risk HPV types were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.64-0.97) in HIV-positive women and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.59-1.27) in HIV-negative women. HRs for HPV18 versus low-risk types were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.56-1.16) and 0.57 (95% CI: 0.22-1.45) for HIV-positive and -negative women, respectively. HPV types within the high-risk category had low estimated clearance rates relative to low-risk types, but HRs were not substantially modified by HIV serostatus. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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