4.5 Article

A comparative profile of the prevalence and age distribution of human papillomavirus type 16/18 infections among three states of India with focus on northeast India

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00827.x

关键词

age-related prevalence; general populations; HPV infection; northeast India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in cervical scrape samples of married women from Manipur (n = 692) and Sikkim (n = 415) in northeast India was determined and compared with that of women from West Bengal (n = 1112) in eastern India by polymerase chain reaction. HPV prevalence was lower in Manipur (7.4%) than in Sikkim (12.5%), which was closely followed by West Bengal (12.9%). HPV18 was predominant in Manipur (2.03%) and strikingly lower (0.2%) in Sikkim and West Bengal (0.9%), while the reverse was true for HPV16. The proportion of HPV16/18 infections in Manipur (3.3%, 22/672) and Sikkim (3.89%, 14/359) were comparable and significantly lower compared to that in West Bengal (7.8%, 79/1007) among women having normal cervical cytology. Such prevalence was similar among all age groups in Manipur: increased with age for women in Sikkim and dropped with age for those in West Bengal similar to that reported previously. At age <= 30 years, HPV16/18 prevalence in Manipur (3.3%) and Sikkim (2.5%) was comparable but was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in contrast to that in West Bengal (8.8%). Among abnormal cytologic lesions, HPV16/18 infections were significantly higher than in normals (P = 0.000) both in Sikkim (14.3%) and West Bengal (20.9%) and absent in Manipur. Such prevalence was noted among women in Sikkim aged > 30 years and equally among those in West Bengal aged <= 30 or > 30 years. Thus, women from northeast India, particularly from Manipur, appear less susceptible to HPV16/18 infection and related cervical lesions compared to those from West Bengal, where such proneness was prominently evident at age <= 30 years.

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

4.5
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