Last data update: May 20, 2024. (Total: 46824 publications since 2009)
Records 1-15 (of 15 Records) |
Query Trace: Mona G [original query] |
---|
Improving HIV case finding through index testing: Findings from health facilities in 12 districts of South Africa, October 2019-September 2021
Aheron S , Paredes-Vincent A , Patton ME , Gross J , Medley A , Mona G , Mtimkulu N , Nkuna K , Grund JM . AIDS Behav 2024 To assess the importance of index testing in HIV case finding, we analyzed quarterly data from October 2019 to September 2021 from 371 facilities in 12 districts in South Africa. Index testing accounted for 2.6% of all HIV tests (index and non-index) (n = 163,633), but 17.8% of all HIV-positive results, with an HIV-positivity 4-times higher than non-index testing modalities (4.1%). Despite twice as many adult females ≥ 15 years accepting index testing (n = 206,715) compared to adult males ≥ 15 years (n = 102,180), females identified fewer contacts (n = 91,123) than males (n = 113,939). Slightly more than half (51.2%) of all contacts elicited were tested (n = 163,633/319,680), while 19.7% (n = 62,978) of elicited contacts were previously diagnosed as HIV-positive and not eligible for further testing. These findings indicate index testing can be effective in increasing HIV diagnoses in South Africa. Further operational research is needed to address gaps identified in the index testing cascade, including elicitation and testing of contacts. |
Decreases in Hepatitis C Testing and Treatment During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Kaufman HW , Bull-Otterson L , Meyer WA3rd , Huang X , Doshani M , Thompson WW , Osinubi A , Khan MA , Harris AM , Gupta N , Van Handel M , Wester C , Mermin J , Nelson NP . Am J Prev Med 2021 61 (3) 369-376 INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare services, reducing opportunities to conduct routine hepatitis C virus antibody screening, clinical care, and treatment. Therefore, people living with undiagnosed hepatitis C virus during the pandemic may later become identified at more advanced stages of the disease, leading to higher morbidity and mortality rates. Further, unidentified hepatitis C virus-infected individuals may continue to unknowingly transmit the virus to others. METHODS: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, data were evaluated from a large national reference clinical laboratory and from national estimates of dispensed prescriptions for hepatitis C virus treatment. Investigators estimated the average number of hepatitis C virus antibody tests, hepatitis C virus antibody-positive test results, and hepatitis C virus RNA-positive test results by month in January-July for 2018 and 2019, compared with the same months in 2020. To assess the impact of hepatitis C virus treatment, dispensed hepatitis C virus direct-acting antiretroviral medications were examined for the same time periods. Statistical analyses of trends were performed using negative binomial models. RESULTS: Compared with the 2018 and 2019 months, hepatitis C virus antibody testing volume decreased 59% during April 2020 and rebounded to a 6% reduction in July 2020. The number of hepatitis C virus RNA-positive results fell by 62% in March 2020 and remained 39% below the baseline by July 2020. For hepatitis C virus treatment, prescriptions decreased 43% in May, 37% in June, and 38% in July relative to the corresponding months in 2018 and 2019. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, continued public health messaging, interventions and outreach programs to restore hepatitis C virus testing and treatment to prepandemic levels, and maintenance of public health efforts to eliminate hepatitis C infections remain important. |
Impact of COVID-19 on Cervical Cancer Screening Rates Among Women Aged 21-65 Years in a Large Integrated Health Care System - Southern California, January 1-September 30, 2019, and January 1-September 30, 2020.
Miller MJ , Xu L , Qin J , Hahn EE , Ngo-Metzger Q , Mittman B , Tewari D , Hodeib M , Wride P , Saraiya M , Chao CR . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021 70 (4) 109-113 On March 19, 2020, the governor of California issued a statewide stay-at-home order to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).* The order reduced accessibility to and patient attendance at outpatient medical visits,(†) including preventive services such as cervical cancer screening. In-person clinic visits increased when California reopened essential businesses on June 12, 2020.(§) Electronic medical records of approximately 1.5 million women served by Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), a large integrated health care system, were examined to assess cervical cancer screening rates before, during, and after the stay-at-home order. KPSC policy is to screen women aged 21-29 years every 3 years with cervical cytology alone (Papanicolaou [Pap] test); those aged 30-65 years were screened every 5 years with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and cytology (cotesting) through July 15, 2020, and after July 15, 2020, with HPV testing alone, consistent with the latest recommendations from U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.(¶) Compared with the 2019 baseline, cervical cancer screening rates decreased substantially during the stay-at-home order. Among women aged 21-29 years, cervical cytology screening rates per 100 person-months declined 78%. Among women aged 30-65 years, HPV test screening rates per 100 person-months decreased 82%. After the stay-at-home order was lifted, screening rates returned to near baseline, which might have been aided by aspects of KPSC's integrated, organized screening program (e.g., reminder systems and tracking persons lost to follow-up). As the pandemic continues, groups at higher risk for developing cervical cancers and precancers should be evaluated first. Ensuring that women receive preventive services, including cancer screening and appropriate follow-up in a safe and timely manner, remains important. |
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Interim Recommendation for Use of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, December 2020.
Oliver SE , Gargano JW , Marin M , Wallace M , Curran KG , Chamberland M , McClung N , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Mbaeyi S , Romero JR , Talbot HK , Lee GM , Bell BP , Dooling K . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021 69 (5152) 1653-1656 On December 18, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Moderna COVID-19 (mRNA-1273) vaccine (ModernaTX, Inc; Cambridge, Massachusetts), a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine encoding the stabilized prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). This vaccine is the second COVID-19 vaccine authorized under an EUA for the prevention of COVID-19 in the United States (2). Vaccination with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine consists of 2 doses (100 μg, 0.5 mL each) administered intramuscularly, 1 month (4 weeks) apart. On December 19, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation* for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years for the prevention of COVID-19. To guide its deliberations regarding the vaccine, ACIP employed the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,(†) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.(§) Use of all COVID-19 vaccines authorized under an EUA, including the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, should be implemented in conjunction with ACIP's interim recommendations for allocating initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines (3). The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine under EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available. |
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Updated Interim Recommendation for Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, December 2020.
Dooling K , Marin M , Wallace M , McClung N , Chamberland M , Lee GM , Talbot HK , Romero JR , Bell BP , Oliver SE . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021 69 (5152) 1657-1660 The first vaccines for prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States were authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1) and recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in December 2020.* However, demand for COVID-19 vaccines is expected to exceed supply during the first months of the national COVID-19 vaccination program. ACIP advises CDC on population groups and circumstances for vaccine use.(†) On December 1, ACIP recommended that 1) health care personnel(§) and 2) residents of long-term care facilities(¶) be offered COVID-19 vaccination first, in Phase 1a of the vaccination program (2). On December 20, 2020, ACIP recommended that in Phase 1b, vaccine should be offered to persons aged ≥75 years and frontline essential workers (non-health care workers), and that in Phase 1c, persons aged 65-74 years, persons aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions, and essential workers not recommended for vaccination in Phase 1b should be offered vaccine.** These recommendations for phased allocation provide guidance for federal, state, and local jurisdictions while vaccine supply is limited. In its deliberations, ACIP considered scientific evidence regarding COVID-19 epidemiology, ethical principles, and vaccination program implementation considerations. ACIP's recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine allocation are interim and might be updated based on changes in conditions of FDA Emergency Use Authorization, FDA authorization for new COVID-19 vaccines, changes in vaccine supply, or changes in COVID-19 epidemiology. |
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Interim Recommendation for Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, December 2020.
Oliver SE , Gargano JW , Marin M , Wallace M , Curran KG , Chamberland M , McClung N , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Mbaeyi S , Romero JR , Talbot HK , Lee GM , Bell BP , Dooling K . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020 69 (50) 1922-1924 On December 11, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2) vaccine (Pfizer, Inc; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine encoding the prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). Vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine consists of 2 doses (30 μg, 0.3 mL each) administered intramuscularly, 3 weeks apart. On December 12, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation* for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥16 years for the prevention of COVID-19. To guide its deliberations regarding the vaccine, ACIP employed the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,(†) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.(§) The recommendation for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine should be implemented in conjunction with ACIP's interim recommendation for allocating initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines (2). The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine under EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available. |
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Interim Recommendation for Allocating Initial Supplies of COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, 2020.
Dooling K , McClung N , Chamberland M , Marin M , Wallace M , Bell BP , Lee GM , Talbot HK , Romero JR , Oliver SE . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020 69 (49) 1857-1859 The emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has led to a global pandemic that has disrupted all sectors of society. Less than 1 year after the SARS-CoV-2 genome was first sequenced, an application* for Emergency Use Authorization for a candidate vaccine has been filed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, even if one or more vaccine candidates receive authorization for emergency use, demand for COVID-19 vaccine is expected to exceed supply during the first months of the national vaccination program. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) advises CDC on population groups and circumstances for vaccine use.(†) ACIP convened on December 1, 2020, in advance of the completion of FDA's review of the Emergency Use Authorization application, to provide interim guidance to federal, state, and local jurisdictions on allocation of initial doses of COVID-19 vaccine. ACIP recommended that, when a COVID-19 vaccine is authorized by FDA and recommended by ACIP, both 1) health care personnel(§) and 2) residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs)(¶) be offered vaccination in the initial phase of the COVID-19 vaccination program (Phase 1a**).(††) In its deliberations, ACIP considered scientific evidence of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, vaccination program implementation, and ethical principles.(§§) The interim recommendation might be updated over the coming weeks based on additional safety and efficacy data from phase III clinical trials and conditions of FDA Emergency Use Authorization. |
Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Within a Psychiatric Hospital and Considerations for Limiting Transmission Within Residential Psychiatric Facilities - Wyoming, 2020.
Callaghan AW , Chard AN , Arnold P , Loveland C , Hull N , Saraiya M , Saydah S , Dumont W , Frakes LG , Johnson D , Peltier R , Van Houten C , Trujillo AA , Moore J , Rose DA , Honein MA , Carrington D , Harrist A , Hills SL . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020 69 (26) 825-829 In the United States, approximately 180,000 patients receive mental health services each day at approximately 4,000 inpatient and residential psychiatric facilities (1). SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can spread rapidly within congregate residential settings (2-4), including psychiatric facilities. On April 13, 2020, two patients were transferred to Wyoming's state psychiatric hospital from a private psychiatric hospital that had confirmed COVID-19 cases among its residents and staff members (5). Although both patients were asymptomatic at the time of transfer and one had a negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 at the originating facility, they were both isolated and received testing upon arrival at the state facility. On April 16, 2020, the test results indicated that both patients had SARS-CoV-2 infection. In response, the state hospital implemented expanded COVID-19 infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures (e.g., enhanced screening, testing, and management of new patient admissions) and adapted some standard IPC measures to facilitate implementation within the psychiatric patient population (e.g., use of modified face coverings). To assess the likely effectiveness of these procedures and determine SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence among patients and health care personnel (HCP) (6) at the state hospital, a point prevalence survey was conducted. On May 1, 2020, 18 days after the patients' arrival, 46 (61%) of 76 patients and 171 (61%) of 282 HCP had nasopharyngeal swabs collected and tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. All patients and HCP who received testing had negative test results, suggesting that the hospital's expanded IPC strategies might have been effective in preventing the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection within the facility. In congregate residential settings, prompt identification of COVID-19 cases and application of strong IPC procedures are critical to ensuring the protection of other patients and staff members. Although standard guidance exists for other congregate facilities (7) and for HCP in general (8), modifications and nonstandard solutions might be needed to account for the specific needs of psychiatric facilities, their patients, and staff members. |
Emerging Concepts in Precision Medicine and Cardiovascular Diseases in Racial and Ethnic Minority Populations.
Mensah GA , Jaquish C , Srinivas P , Papanicolaou GJ , Wei GS , Redmond N , Roberts MC , Nelson C , Aviles-Santa L , Puggal M , Green Parker MC , Minear MA , Barfield W , Fenton KN , Boyce CA , Engelgau MM , Khoury MJ . Circ Res 2019 125 (1) 7-13 Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of mortality and a major contributor to preventable deaths worldwide. The dominant modifiable risk factors and the social and environmental determinants that increase cardiovascular risk are known, and collectively, are as important in racial and ethnic minority populations as they are in majority populations. Their prevention and treatment remain the foundation for cardiovascular health promotion and disease prevention. Genetic and epigenetic factors are increasingly recognized as important contributors to cardiovascular risk and provide an opportunity for advancing precision cardiovascular medicine. In this review, we explore emerging concepts at the interface of precision medicine and cardiovascular disease in racial and ethnic minority populations. Important among these are the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in genomics studies and biorepositories; the resulting misclassification of benign variants as pathogenic in minorities; and the importance of ensuring ancestry-matched controls in variant interpretation. We address the relevance of epigenetics, pharmacogenomics, genetic testing and counseling, and their social and cultural implications. We also examine the potential impact of precision medicine on racial and ethnic disparities. The National Institutes of Health's All of Us Research Program and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine Initiative are presented as examples of research programs at the forefront of precision medicine and diversity to explore research implications in minorities. We conclude with an overview of implementation research challenges in precision medicine and the ethical implications in minority populations. Successful implementation of precision medicine in cardiovascular disease in minority populations will benefit from strategies that directly address diversity and inclusion in genomics research and go beyond race and ethnicity to explore ancestry-matched controls, as well as geographic, cultural, social, and environmental determinants of health. |
Population-Based Assessment of HPV Genotype-Specific Cervical Cancer Survival: CDC Cancer Registry Sentinel Surveillance System.
Hallowell BD , Saraiya M , Thompson TD , Unger ER , Lynch CF , Tucker T , Copeland G , Hernandez BY , Peters ES , Wilkinson E , Goodman MT . JNCI Cancer Spectr 2018 2 (3) Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype influences the development of invasive cervical cancer (ICC); however, there is uncertainty regarding the association of HPV genotype with survival among ICC patients. Method(s): Follow-up data were collected from 693 previously selected and HPV-typed ICC cases that were part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cancer Registry Surveillance System. Cases were diagnosed between 1994 and 2005. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate five-year all-cause survival. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the effect of HPV genotype on survival after adjusting for demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Result(s): Five-year all-cause survival rates varied by HPV status (HPV 16: 66.9%, HPV 18: 65.7%, HPV 31/33/45/52/58: 70.8%, other oncogenic HPV genotypes: 79.0%, nononcogenic HPV: 69.3%, HPV-negative: 54.0%). Following multivariable adjustment, no statistically significant survival differences were found for ICC patients with HPV 16-positive tumors compared with women with tumors positive for HPV 18, other oncogenic HPV types, or HPV-negative tumors. Women with detectable HPV 31/33/33/ 45/52/58 had a statistically significant 40% reduced hazard of death at five years (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38 to 0.95), and women who tested positive for nononcogenic HPV genotypes had a statistically significant 57% reduced hazard of death at five years (95% CI = 0.19 to 0.96) compared with women with HPV 16 tumors. Few statistically significant differences in HPV positivity, tumor characteristics, treatment, or survival were found by race/ethnicity. Conclusion(s): HPV genotype statistically significantly influenced five-year survival rates among women with ICC; however, screening and HPV vaccination remain the most important factors to improve patient prognosis and prevent future cases. |
A case control study on family history as a risk factor for herpes zoster and associated outcomes, Beijing, China.
Suo L , Lu L , Li J , Sun M , Wang H , Peng X , Yang F , Pang X , Marin M , Wang C . BMC Infect Dis 2017 17 (1) 334 BACKGROUND: Hospital-based case control studies have found family history of herpes zoster (HZ) was associated with risk of HZ, but the role of family history is not fully examined for other HZ-associated outcomes such as recurrent HZ, occurrence of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), and HZ with different pain severities. METHODS: We conducted a population-based matched case control study. HZ cases that occurred during December 1, 2011 to November 30, 2012 were identified by face-to-face interview with all residents of eight selected communities/villages from three districts of Beijing, China. Medical records were reviewed for those who sought healthcare for HZ. For each case-patient, three, age-matched controls (+/-5 years) without HZ were enrolled from the same community/village of the matched case. Data on family history of HZ were collected by interview and only defined among first-degree relatives. RESULTS: A total of 227 case-patients and 678 matched controls were enrolled. Case-patients were more likely to report a family history of HZ [odds ratio (OR) =2.4, P = 0.002]. Compared with controls, association of family history decreased from HZ with PHN to HZ without PHN (OR = 6.0 and 2.3, respectively; P = 0.002 for trend), from recurrent HZ to primary HZ (OR = 9.4 and 2.2, respectively; P = 0.005 for trend), and from HZ with moderate or severe pain to HZ with mild or no pain (OR = 3.2 and 0.8, respectively; P < 0.001 for trend). CONCLUSIONS: Family history of HZ was associated with HZ occurrence and was more likely in HZ case-patients with PHN, recurrences, and painful HZ. |
Safety of Second-Dose Single-Antigen Varicella Vaccine.
Su JR , Leroy Z , Lewis PW , Haber P , Marin M , Leung J , Woo EJ , Shimabukuro TT . Pediatrics 2017 139 (3) BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In 2006, routine 2-dose varicella vaccination for children was recommended to improve control of varicella. We assessed the safety of second-dose varicella vaccination. METHODS: We identified second-dose single-antigen varicella vaccine reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System during 2006 to 2014 among children aged 4 to 18 years. We analyzed reports by age group (4-6 and 7-18 years), sex, serious or nonserious status, most common adverse events (AEs), and whether other vaccines were administered concomitantly with varicella vaccine. We reviewed serious reports of selected AEs and conducted empirical Bayesian data mining to detect disproportional reporting of AEs. RESULTS: We identified 14 641 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System reports after second-dose varicella vaccination, with 494 (3%) classified as serious. Among nonserious reports, injection site reactions were most common (48% of children aged 4-6 years, 38% of children aged 7-18 years). The most common AEs among serious reports were pyrexia (31%) for children aged 4 to 6 years and headache (28%) and vomiting (27%) for children aged 7 to 18 years. Serious reports of selected AEs included anaphylaxis (83), meningitis (5), encephalitis (16), cellulitis (52), varicella (6), herpes zoster (6), and deaths (7). One immunosuppressed adolescent was reported with vaccine-strain herpes zoster. Only previously known AEs were reported more frequently after second-dose varicella vaccination compared with other vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: We identified no new or unexpected safety concerns for second-dose varicella vaccination. Robust safety monitoring remains an important component of the national varicella vaccination program. |
Human papillomavirus genotype and oropharynx cancer survival in the United States of America.
Goodman MT , Saraiya M , Thompson TD , Steinau M , Hernandez BY , Lynch CF , Lyu CW , Wilkinson EJ , Tucker T , Copeland G , Peters ES , Altekruse S , Unger ER . Eur J Cancer 2015 51 (18) 2759-67 BACKGROUND: The presence of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (OPSCC) tissue appears to be a strong predictor of improved prognosis, but this observation has not been explored in a population-based sample with generalisable findings. METHODS: Follow-up data from a large sample of OPSCC patients identified through six population-based cancer registries in the United States of America (USA) were used to characterise the association of tumour HPV status with survival. RESULTS: HPV DNA was detected in tumour tissue from 71% (378 in 529) of the OPSCC patients. A total of 65% of patients with HPV16-associated tumours survived 5 years compared to 46% of patients with other HPV types and 28% of patients with HPV-negative tumours (p log-rank test <0.0001). The OPSCC patients with detectable HPV16 DNA had a 62% reduced hazard of death at 5 years, and patients with other HPV types had a 42% reduced hazard of death at 5 years compared to HPV-negative patients. Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks with OPSCC had a 2.6-fold greater risk of death at 5 years after adjustment for HPV status and other prognostic variables. Both surgery and radiation therapy were associated with a reduced 5-year risk of death, but no evidence was found for an interaction between HPV status and radiotherapy or surgery on survival time. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this US study suggest that HPV16-positive OPSCC patients survive longer than HPV-negative patients regardless of treatment, highlighting the prognostic importance of HPV status for this malignancy. Optimal treatment regimens for OPSCC could be tailored to each patient's HPV status and prognostic profile. |
Human papillomavirus genotype prevalence in invasive penile cancers from a registry-based United States population.
Hernandez BY , Goodman MT , Unger ER , Steinau M , Powers A , Lynch CF , Cozen W , Saber MS , Peters ES , Wilkinson EJ , Copeland G , Hopenhayn C , Huang Y , Watson M , Altekruse SF , Lyu C , Saraiya M . Front Oncol 2014 4 9 BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is estimated to play an etiologic role in 40-50% of penile cancers worldwide. Estimates of HPV prevalence in U.S. penile cancer cases are limited. METHODS: HPV DNA was evaluated in tumor tissue from 79 invasive penile cancer patients diagnosed in 1998-2005 within the catchment areas of seven U.S. cancer registries. HPV was genotyped using PCR-based Linear Array and INNO-LiPA assays and compared by demographic, clinical, and pathologic characteristics and survival. Histological classification was also obtained by independent pathology review. RESULTS: HPV DNA was present in 50 of 79 (63%) of invasive penile cancer cases. Sixteen viral genotypes were detected. HPV 16, found in 46% (36/79) of all cases (72% of HPV-positive cases) was the most prevalent genotype followed equally by HPV 18, 33, and 45, each of which comprised 5% of all cases. Multiple genotypes were detected in 18% of viral positive cases. HPV prevalence did not significantly vary by age, race/ethnicity, population size of geographic region, cancer stage, histology, grade, penile subsite, or prior cancer history. Penile cases diagnosed in more recent years were more likely to be HPV-positive. Overall survival did not significantly vary by HPV status. CONCLUSION: The relatively high prevalence of HPV in our study population provides limited evidence of a more prominent and, possibly, increasing role of infection in penile carcinogenesis in the U.S. compared to other parts of the world. |
Antigenic and genetic diversity of highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) viruses isolated in Egypt
Balish AL , Davis CT , Saad MD , El-Sayed N , Esmat H , Tjaden JA , Earhart KC , Ahmed LE , El-Halem MA , Ali AHM , Nassif SA , El-Ebiary EA , Taha M , Mona MA , Arafa A , O'Neill E , Xu XY , Cox NJ , Donis RO , Klimov AI . Avian Dis 2010 54 329-334 Highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus (H5N1) has diverged antigenically and genetically since its initial detection in Asia in 1997. Viruses belonging to clade 2.2 in particular have been reported in numerous countries with the majority occurring in Egypt. Previous reports identified antigenic similarities between viruses belonging to clade 2.2. However, poultry and human viruses isolated in northern Egypt during 2007 and 2008 were found to be antigenically distinct from other clade 2.2 viruses from this country. Genetic analysis of the hemagglutinin revealed a high degree of nucleotide and amino acid divergence. The antigenic changes in Egyptian viruses isolated during 2007-08 necessitated that two of these strains be considered as potential H5N1 pre-pandemic vaccine candidates. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 20, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure