METHODS: We did a systematic review for studies on anal HPV infection in men and a pooled analysis of individual-level data from eligible studies across four groups: HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM), HIV-negative MSM, HIV-positive men who have sex with women (MSW), and HIV-negative MSW. Studies were required to inform on type-specific HPV infection (at least HPV16), detected by use of a PCR-based test from anal swabs, HIV status, sexuality (MSM, including those who have sex with men only or also with women, or MSW), and age. Authors of eligible studies with a sample size of 200 participants or more were invited to share deidentified individual-level data on the above four variables. Authors of studies including 40 or more HIV-positive MSW or 40 or more men from Africa (irrespective of HIV status and sexuality) were also invited to share these data. Pooled estimates of anal high-risk HPV (HR-HPV, including HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68), and HSIL or worse (HSIL+), were compared by use of adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) from generalised linear models.
FINDINGS: The systematic review identified 93 eligible studies, of which 64 contributed data on 29 900 men to the pooled analysis. Among HIV-negative MSW anal HPV16 prevalence was 1·8% (91 of 5190) and HR-HPV prevalence was 6·9% (345 of 5003); among HIV-positive MSW the prevalences were 8·7% (59 of 682) and 26·9% (179 of 666); among HIV-negative MSM they were 13·7% (1455 of 10 617) and 41·2% (3798 of 9215), and among HIV-positive MSM 28·5% (3819 of 13 411) and 74·3% (8765 of 11 803). In HIV-positive MSM, HPV16 prevalence was 5·6% (two of 36) among those age 15-18 years and 28·8% (141 of 490) among those age 23-24 years (ptrend=0·0091); prevalence was 31·7% (1057 of 3337) among those age 25-34 years and 22·8% (451 of 1979) among those age 55 and older (ptrend<0·0001). HPV16 prevalence in HIV-negative MSM was 6·7% (15 of 223) among those age 15-18 and 13·9% (166 of 1192) among those age 23-24 years (ptrend=0·0076); the prevalence plateaued thereafter (ptrend=0·72). Similar age-specific patterns were observed for HR-HPV. No significant differences for HPV16 or HR-HPV were found by age for either HIV-positive or HIV-negative MSW. HSIL+ detection ranged from 7·5% (12 of 160) to 54·5% (61 of 112) in HIV-positive MSM; after adjustment for heterogeneity, HIV was a significant predictor of HSIL+ (aPR 1·54, 95% CI 1·36-1·73), HPV16-positive HSIL+ (1·66, 1·36-2·03), and HSIL+ in HPV16-positive MSM (1·19, 1·04-1·37). Among HPV16-positive MSM, HSIL+ prevalence increased with age.
INTERPRETATION: High anal HPV prevalence among young HIV-positive and HIV-negative MSM highlights the benefits of gender-neutral HPV vaccination before sexual activity over catch-up vaccination. HIV-positive MSM are a priority for anal cancer screening research and initiatives targeting HPV16-positive HSIL+.
FUNDING: International Agency for Research on Cancer.
IMPORTANCE: This collaborative international study defined the global heterogeneity of HPV11 and established the largest collection of globally circulating HPV11 genomic variants to date. Thirty novel complete HPV11 genomes were determined and submitted to the available sequence repositories. Global phylogenetic analysis revealed two HPV11 variant lineages and four sublineages. The HPV11 (sub)lineage-specific SNPs and the representative region identified within the partial genomic region E2/noncoding region 2 (NCR2) will enable the simpler identification and comparison of HPV11 variants worldwide. This study provides an important knowledge base for HPV11 for future studies in HPV epidemiology, evolution, pathogenicity, prevention, and molecular assay development.
STUDY DESIGN: In this cross sectional study, between November 2013 to March 2014, in a public university, a convenient sampling method was used. A total of 716 respondents were recruited and interviewed with a set of standard questionnaires for assessment of knowledge, perception and attitudes towards HPV and predictor variables associated with level of knowledge.
RESULTS: Almost half (48.9%) of the respondents scored less than 5 and were categorised as having poor knowledge. Three hundred and twelve (43.6%) respondents had moderate knowledge and only 54 (7.5%) respondents exhibited good knowledge with the score of 11 and above. Only 142 (20%) students perceived themselves to be vulnerable to HPV infection though 560 (78.2%) students thought that HPV infection is a serious disease. Perceived benefits and desire to be vaccinated were significantly associated with gender (p=0.000) and knowledge of HPV vaccine and cervical cancer (p=0.000).
CONCLUSIONS: The level of knowledge regarding HPV among the pre-university students was low. However, student intention for vaccination increased with increasing level of knowledge. Thus, efforts to improve knowledge and awareness should be prioritised to increase uptake of the HPV vaccination programme and hence reduce morbidity and mortality from consequences of HPV infection, including cervical carcinoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cervical scrapings were collected from women attending clinics for routine Pap smear screening. HPV-DNA was detected by PCR using MY09/11 and GP5+/GP6+ primer sets and genotyping was accomplished by cycle-sequencing.
RESULTS: A total of 635 women were recruited into the study with mean ± SD age of 43 ± 10.5 years. Of these 92.6% (588/635) were reported as within normal limits (WNL) on cytology. The presence of HPV infection detected by nested MY/GP+-PCR was 4.4% (28/635). The overall prevalence of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) in abnormal Pap smears was 53.8% (7/13). HPVs were also seen in 3.1% (18/588) of smears reported as WNL by cytology and 5.9% (2/34) in smears unsatisfactory for evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall percentage of HPV positivity in routine cervical screening samples is comparable with abnormal findings in cytology. Conventional Pap smear 'missed' a few samples. Since HPV testing is expensive, our results may provide valuable information for strategising implementation of effective cervical cancer screening in a country with limited resources like Malaysia. If Pap smear coverage could be improved, HPV testing could be used as an adjunct method on cases with ambiguous diagnoses.
METHODOLOGY: A total number of 612 secondary school girls participated in this study. The questionnaire consists of 38 questions which included 3 sections. The first section is about socio- demography. The Second section is about knowledge and awareness of HPV vaccines. The third section is about practices with associated barriers of HPV vaccination. Verbal consent was obtained from all participants, and data were analyzed using SPSS 13.
RESULTS: A total number of 612 secondary school girl students participated in this study. The mean age was 13.93 ± SD (1.09); minimum age was 13 years old and maximum was 17 years old. The majority of them was Malay, from rural areas and had a family monthly income of RM 3000 or less (91.8%, 53.1%, 69.6%; respectively). The majority of the parents of the school girls were with secondary education level (56.4%). The majority of the participants did not have a family history of cervical cancer (99.0%). The prevalence of HPV vaccination was 77.9% among school girls in Melaka. The majority of the participants were vaccinated in their schools (77.0%). About 69% knew about cervical cancer and 77.6% had ever heard about HPV vaccine. Regarding the factors that influence the practice of uptake HPV vaccine, they were age, race, income, parents' education, knowledge about cervical cancer, heard about HPV vaccine and place of getting the vaccine (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of HPV vaccine among school girls is high. Age, race, income, parents' education, knowledge about cervical cancer, heard about HPV vaccine and place of getting the vaccine were the significant factors that influence the practice of uptake HPV vaccine among school girls.
METHODS: In the first part of the analysis costs attributable to cervical cancer and precancerous lesions were estimated; epidemiologic data were sourced from the WHO GLOBOCAN database and Malaysian national data sources. In the second part, a prevalence-based model was used to estimate the potential annual number of cases of cervical cancer and precancerous lesions that could be prevented and subsequent HPV-related treatment costs averted with the bivalent (HPV 16/18) and the quadrivalent (HPV 16/18/6/11) vaccines, at the population level, at steady state. A vaccine efficacy of 98% was assumed against HPV types included in both vaccines. Effectiveness against other oncogenic HPV types was based on the latest results from each vaccine's respective clinical trials.
RESULTS: In Malaysia there are an estimated 4,696 prevalent cases of cervical cancer annually and 1,372 prevalent cases of precancerous lesions, which are associated with a total direct cost of RM 39.2 million with a further RM 12.4 million in indirect costs owing to lost productivity. At steady state, vaccination with the bivalent vaccine was estimated to prevent 4,199 cervical cancer cases per year versus 3,804 cases for the quadrivalent vaccine. Vaccination with the quadrivalent vaccine was projected to prevent 1,721 cases of genital warts annually, whereas the annual number of cases remained unchanged with the bivalent vaccine. Furthermore, vaccination with the bivalent vaccine was estimated to avert RM 45.4 million in annual HPV-related treatment costs (direct+indirect) compared with RM 42.9 million for the quadrivalent vaccine.
CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that vaccination against HPV 16/18 can reduce the clinical and economic burden of cervical cancer and precancerous lesions in Malaysia. The greatest potential economic benefit was observed using the bivalent vaccine in preference to the quadrivalent vaccine.