INTRODUCTION: Health equity science examines underlying social determinants, or drivers, of health inequities by building an evidence base to guide action across programs, public health surveillance, policy, and communications efforts. A Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) was utilized during the COVID-19 response to identify areas where inequities exist and support communities with vaccination. We set out to assess COVID-19 vaccination coverage by two SVI themes, Racial and Ethnicity Minority Status and Housing Type and Transportation to examine disparities. METHODS: US county-level COVID-19 vaccine administration data among persons aged 5 years and older reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from December 14, 2020 to December 14, 2022, were analyzed. Counties were categorized 1) into tertiles (low, moderate, high) according to each SVI theme's level of vulnerability or 2) dichotomized by urban or rural classification. Primary series vaccination coverage per age group were assessed for SVI social factors by SVI theme tertiles or urbanicity. RESULTS: Older adults aged 65 years and older had the highest vaccination coverage across all vulnerability factors compared with children aged 5-17 years and adults aged 18-64 years. Overall, children and adults had higher vaccination coverage in counties of high vulnerability. Greater vaccination coverage differences were observed by urbanicity as rural counties had some of the lowest vaccination coverage for children and adults. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccination efforts narrowed gaps in coverage for adults aged 65 years and older but larger vaccination coverage differences remained among younger populations. Moreover, greater disparities in coverage existed in rural counties. Health equity science approaches to analyses should extend beyond identifying differences by basic demographics such as race and ethnicity and include factors that provide context (housing, transportation, age, and geography) to assist with prioritization of vaccination efforts where true disparities in vaccination coverage exist.

IMPORTANCE: Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were recommended in the US for children and adolescents aged 12 years or older on September 1, 2022, and for children aged 5 to 11 years on October 12, 2022; however, data demonstrating the effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 among children and adolescents. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data for the period September 4, 2022, to January 31, 2023, were combined from 3 prospective US cohort studies (6 sites total) and used to estimate COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. A total of 2959 participants completed periodic surveys (demographics, household characteristics, chronic medical conditions, and COVID-19 symptoms) and submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs (irrespective of symptoms); participants submitted additional nasal swabs at the onset of any symptoms. EXPOSURE: Vaccination status was captured from the periodic surveys and supplemented with data from state immunization information systems and electronic medical records. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Respiratory swabs were tested for the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as a positive test regardless of symptoms. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as a positive test and 2 or more COVID-19 symptoms within 7 days of specimen collection. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 among participants who received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose vs participants who received no vaccine or monovalent vaccine doses only. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, underlying health conditions, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status, geographic site, proportion of circulating variants by site, and local virus prevalence. RESULTS: Of the 2959 participants (47.8% were female; median age, 10.6 years [IQR, 8.0-13.2 years]; 64.6% were non-Hispanic White) included in this analysis, 25.4% received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose. During the study period, 426 participants (14.4%) had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among these 426 participants, 184 (43.2%) had symptomatic COVID-19, 383 (89.9%) were not vaccinated or had received only monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses (1.38 SARS-CoV-2 infections per 1000 person-days), and 43 (10.1%) had received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose (0.84 SARS-CoV-2 infections per 1000 person-days). Bivalent vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 54.0% (95% CI, 36.6%-69.1%) and vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 was 49.4% (95% CI, 22.2%-70.7%). The median observation time after vaccination was 276 days (IQR, 142-350 days) for participants who received only monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses vs 50 days (IQR, 27-74 days) for those who received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The bivalent COVID-19 vaccines protected children and adolescents against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19. These data demonstrate the benefit of COVID-19 vaccine in children and adolescents. All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Understanding the real-world impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mitigation measures, particularly vaccination, in children and adolescents in congregate settings remains important. We evaluated protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection using school-based testing data. METHODS: Using data from Utah middle- and high-school students participating in school-wide antigen testing in January 2022 during omicron (BA.1) variant predominance, log binomial models were fit to estimate the protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Among 17 910 students, median age was 16 years (range: 12-19), 16.7% had documented previous SARS-CoV-2 infection; 55.6% received 2 vaccine doses with 211 median days since the second dose; and 8.6% of students aged 16 to 19 years received 3 vaccine doses with 21 median days since the third dose. Protection from previous infection alone was 35.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.9%-52.8%) and 23.8% (95% CI: 2.1%-40.7%) for students aged 12 to 15 and 16 to 19 years, respectively. Protection from 2-dose hybrid immunity (previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination) with <180 days since the second dose was 58.7% (95% CI: 33.2%-74.4%) for students aged 12 to 15 and 54.7% (95% CI: 31.0%-70.3%) for students aged 16 to 19 years. Protection was highest (70.0%, 95% CI: 42.3%-84.5%) among students with 3-dose hybrid immunity, although confidence intervals overlap with 2-dose vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated protection against infection was strongest for those with hybrid immunity from previous infection and recent vaccination with a third dose.

BACKGROUND: University students commonly received COVID-19 vaccinations before returning to U.S. campuses in the Fall of 2021. Given likely immunologic variation among students based on differences in type of primary series and/or booster dose vaccine received, we conducted serologic investigations in September and December 2021 on a large university campus in Wisconsin to assess anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels. METHODS: We collected blood samples, demographic information, and COVID-19 illness and vaccination history from a convenience sample of students. Sera were analyzed for both anti-spike (anti-S) and anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibody levels using World Health Organization standardized binding antibody units per milliliter (BAU/mL). Levels were compared across categorical primary COVID-19 vaccine series received and binary COVID-19 mRNA booster status. The association between anti-S levels and time since most recent vaccination dose was estimated by mixed-effects linear regression. RESULTS: In total, 356 students participated, of whom 219 (61.5%) had received a primary vaccine series of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccines and 85 (23.9%) had received vaccines from Sinovac or Sinopharm. Median anti-S levels were significantly higher for mRNA primary vaccine series recipients (2.90 and 2.86 log [BAU/mL], respectively), compared with those who received Sinopharm or Sinovac vaccines (1.63 and 1.95 log [BAU/mL], respectively). Sinopharm and Sinovac vaccine recipients were associated with a significantly faster anti-S decline over time, compared with mRNA vaccine recipients (P <.001). By December, 48/172 (27.9%) participants reported receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster, which reduced the anti-S antibody discrepancies between primary series vaccine types. CONCLUSIONS: Our work supports the benefit of heterologous boosting against COVID-19. COVID-19 mRNA vaccine booster doses were associated with increases in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels; following an mRNA booster dose, students with both mRNA and non-mRNA primary series receipt were associated with comparable levels of anti-S IgG.

INTRODUCTION: Mitigation behaviors are key to preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We identified the behaviors associated with secondary transmission from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 primary cases to household contacts and described the characteristics associated with reporting these behaviors. METHODS: Households with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were recruited in California and Colorado from January to April 2021. Self-reported behaviors and demographics were collected through interviews. We investigated behaviors associated with transmission and individual and household characteristics associated with behaviors using univariable and multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to account for household clustering. RESULTS: Among household contacts of primary cases, 43.3% (133 of 307) became infected with SARS-CoV-2. When an adjusted analysis was conducted, household contacts who slept in the same bedroom with the primary case (AOR=2.19; 95% CI=1.25, 3.84) and ate food prepared by the primary case (AOR=1.98; 95% CI=1.02, 3.87) had increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Household contacts in homes 2,000 square feet had increased odds of sleeping in the same bedroom as the primary case compared with those in homes >2,000 square feet (AOR=3.97; 95% CI=1.73, 9.10). Parents, siblings, and other relationships (extended family, friends, or roommates) of the primary case had decreased odds of eating food prepared by the primary case compared with partners. CONCLUSIONS: Sleeping in the same bedroom as the primary case and eating food prepared by the primary case were associated with secondary transmission. Household dimension and relationship to the primary case were associated with these behaviors. Our findings encourage innovative means to promote adherence to mitigation measures that reduce household transmission.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination reduces SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission. However, evidence is emerging on the degree of protection across variants and in high-transmission settings. To better understand the protection afforded by vaccination specifically in a high-transmission setting, we examined household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during a period of high community incidence with predominant SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant, among vaccinated and unvaccinated contacts. METHODS: We conducted a household transmission investigation in San Diego County, California, and Denver, Colorado, during January-April 2021. Households were enrolled if they had at least one person with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. We collected nasopharyngeal swabs, blood, demographic information, and vaccination history from all consenting household members. We compared infection risks (IRs), RT-PCR cycle threshold values, SARS-CoV-2 culture results, and antibody statuses among vaccinated and unvaccinated household contacts. RESULTS: We enrolled 493 individuals from 138 households. The SARS-CoV-2 variant was identified from 121/138 households (88%). The most common variants were Alpha (75/121, 62%) and Epsilon (19/121, 16%). There were no households with discordant lineages among household members. One fully vaccinated secondary case was symptomatic (13%); the other 5 were asymptomatic (87%). Among unvaccinated secondary cases, 105/108 (97%) were symptomatic. Among 127 households with a single primary case, the IR for household contacts was 45% (146/322; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 40-51%). The observed IR was higher in unvaccinated (130/257, 49%, 95% CI 45-57%) than fully vaccinated contacts (6/26, 23%, 95% CI 11-42%). A lower proportion of households with a fully vaccinated primary case had secondary cases (1/5, 20%) than households with an unvaccinated primary case (66/108, 62%). CONCLUSIONS: Although SARS-CoV-2 infections in vaccinated household contacts were reported in this high transmission setting, full vaccination protected against SARS-CoV-2 infection. These findings further support the protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination and highlight the need for ongoing vaccination among eligible persons.

IMPORTANCE: As self-collected home antigen tests become widely available, a better understanding of their performance during the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection is needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of home antigen tests compared with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture by days from illness onset, as well as user acceptability. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective cohort study was conducted from January to May 2021 in San Diego County, California, and metropolitan Denver, Colorado. The convenience sample included adults and children with RT-PCR-confirmed infection who used self-collected home antigen tests for 15 days and underwent at least 1 nasopharyngeal swab for RT-PCR, viral culture, and sequencing. EXPOSURES: SARS-CoV-2 infection. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the daily sensitivity of home antigen tests to detect RT-PCR-confirmed cases. Secondary outcomes included the daily percentage of antigen test, RT-PCR, and viral culture results that were positive, and antigen test sensitivity compared with same-day RT-PCR and cultures. Antigen test use errors and acceptability were assessed for a subset of participants. RESULTS: This study enrolled 225 persons with RT-PCR-confirmed infection (median [range] age, 29 [1-83] years; 117 female participants [52%]; 10 [4%] Asian, 6 [3%] Black or African American, 50 [22%] Hispanic or Latino, 3 [1%] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 145 [64%] White, and 11 [5%] multiracial individuals) who completed 3044 antigen tests and 642 nasopharyngeal swabs. Antigen test sensitivity was 50% (95% CI, 45%-55%) during the infectious period, 64% (95% CI, 56%-70%) compared with same-day RT-PCR, and 84% (95% CI, 75%-90%) compared with same-day cultures. Antigen test sensitivity peaked 4 days after illness onset at 77% (95% CI, 69%-83%). Antigen test sensitivity improved with a second antigen test 1 to 2 days later, particularly early in the infection. Six days after illness onset, antigen test result positivity was 61% (95% CI, 53%-68%). Almost all (216 [96%]) surveyed individuals reported that they would be more likely to get tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if home antigen tests were available over the counter. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this cohort study of home antigen tests suggest that sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was moderate compared with RT-PCR and high compared with viral culture. The results also suggest that symptomatic individuals with an initial negative home antigen test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection should test again 1 to 2 days later because test sensitivity peaked several days after illness onset and improved with repeated testing.

BACKGROUND: In Spring 2021, SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 (Alpha) became the predominant variant in the U.S. Research suggests that Alpha has increased transmissibility compared to non-Alpha lineages. We estimated household secondary infection risk (SIR), assessed characteristics associated with transmission, and compared symptoms of persons with Alpha and non-Alpha infections. METHODS: We followed households with SARS-CoV-2 infection for two weeks in San Diego County and metropolitan Denver, January to April 2021. We collected epidemiologic information and biospecimens for serology, RT-PCR, and whole genome sequencing. We stratified SIR and symptoms by lineage, and identified characteristics associated with transmission using Generalized Estimating Equations. RESULTS: We investigated 127 households with 322 household contacts; 72 households (56.7%) had member(s) with secondary infections. SIRs were not significantly higher for Alpha (61.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 52.4-69.0%]) than non-Alpha (55.6% [CI 44.7-65.9%], P = 0.49). In households with Alpha, persons who identified as Asian or Hispanic/Latino had significantly higher SIRs than those who identified as White (P = 0.01 and 0.03, respectively). Close contact (e.g., kissing, hugging) with primary cases was associated with increased transmission for all lineages. Persons with Alpha infection were more likely to report constitutional symptoms than persons with non-Alpha (86.9% vs. 76.8%, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Household SIRs were similar for Alpha and non-Alpha. Comparable SIRs may be due to saturation of transmission risk in households owing to extensive close contact, or true lack of difference in transmission rates. Avoiding close contact within households may reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission for all lineages among household members.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze trends in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing and test positivity among persons aged <18 years in a three-site outpatient pediatric practice in Atlanta, Georgia, serving approximately 35,000 pediatric patients. METHODS: Using electronic medical records, weekly trends in SARS-CoV-2 tests performed and the 14-day moving average of test positivity were examined, overall and by age group, during May 24-December 5, 2020. RESULTS: Among 4,995 patients who received at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 test, 6,813 total tests were completed. Overall test positivity was 5.4% and was higher among older pediatric patients (<5 years: 3.3%; 5-11 years: 4.1%; 12-17 years: 8.6%). The number of tests and test positivity increased after holidays and school breaks. CONCLUSIONS: Families might benefit from communication focused on reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission during holidays. In addition, given higher test positivity in children aged 12-17 years, tailoring public health messaging to older adolescents could help limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk in this population.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing is an emerging cervical cancer screening strategy, yet few mail-based HPV self-testing programs have been implemented in the United States. We report the results of a pilot study of a mail-based program, the Health Outcomes through Motivation and Education Project. METHODS: In 2015 to 2016, we recruited 103 women from Appalachian Ohio who were aged 30 to 65 years and had not received a Papanicolaou (Pap) test in at least 3 years. Women were mailed an HPV self-test and randomized to receive either (a) self-test instructions developed by the device manufacturer and a standard information brochure about cervical cancer (control group) or (b) self-test instructions developed by the Health Outcomes through Motivation and Education Project and a photo story information brochure about cervical cancer (intervention group). Logistic regression compared study arms on HPV self-test return and receipt of a Pap test. RESULTS: Overall, 80 (78%) women returned their HPV self-test. Return was similar among the intervention and control groups (78% vs. 77%; odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-2.76). Among returners, 26% had an oncogenic HPV type detected in their sample. Women who returned their self-test reported high levels of satisfaction and positive experiences with the self-testing process. Few women overall received a Pap test (11%), and Pap testing was similar among the intervention and control groups (14% vs. 8%; odds ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-6.97). CONCLUSIONS: Mail-based HPV self-testing programs are a potentially promising strategy for reaching underscreened women in Appalachia. Efforts are needed to better understand how to optimize the success of such programs.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines the impact of Family Healthware™ on communication behaviors; specifically, communication with family members and health care providers about family health history. METHODS: A total of 3786 participants were enrolled in the Family Healthware™ Impact Trial (FHITr) in the United States from 2005-7. The trial employed a two-arm cluster-randomized design, with primary care practices serving as the unit of randomization. Using generalized estimating equations (GEE), analyses focused on communication behaviors at 6month follow-up, adjusting for age, site and practice clustering. RESULTS: A significant interaction was observed between study arm and baseline communication status for the family communication outcomes (p's<.01), indicating that intervention had effects of different magnitude between those already communicating at baseline and those who were not. Among participants who were not communicating at baseline, intervention participants had higher odds of communicating with family members about family history risk (OR=1.24, p=0.042) and actively collecting family history information at follow-up (OR=2.67, p=0.026). Family Healthware™ did not have a significant effect on family communication among those already communicating at baseline, or on provider communication, regardless of baseline communication status. Greater communication was observed among those at increased familial risk for a greater number of diseases. CONCLUSION: Family Healthware™ prompted more communication about family history with family members, among those who were not previously communicating. Efforts are needed to identify approaches to encourage greater sharing of family history information, particularly with health care providers.

Aberrant promoter methylation of biologically relevant genes in cervical cancer and uneven CpG distribution within the human papillomavirus 16 (HPV 16) enhancer region have been reported. Cervical samples and questionnaires from 151 women screened for cervical cancer in Appalachian Ohio were analyzed. Methylation was measured by bisulfite sequencing in candidate gene sites in ESR1, DCC, p16, and LINE1 elements. Among 89 HPV 16-positive women, CpG sites in the E6 promoter and enhancer regions and the L1 region of the HPV 16 genome were measured. Methylation levels were compared by cervical cytology and HPV 16 status. HPV methylation was low regardless of cytology status, however E6 methylation was significantly higher in women with normal cytology. ESR1 and DCC methylation were significantly higher in HPV 16-positive women. Increased methylation at sites in the E6 promoter region was associated with lower odds of abnormal cytology. Increased methylation in candidate genes was associated with higher odds of abnormal cytology, particularly DCC region 2.4, DCC region 2.6, ESR1 region 3.2, and LINE1 site 1.2. HPV 16 genome CpG methylation was low except for the L1 region. In general, lower HPV 16 methylation and higher candidate gene methylation levels were associated with higher odds of abnormal cytology.

AIM: To evaluate perceived risk, control, worry, and severity about diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke among individuals at increased familial risk of diabetes. METHODS: Data analyses were based on the Family Healthware Impact Trial. Baseline health beliefs were compared across three groups: (1) no family history of diabetes, CHD or stroke (n=836), (2) family history of diabetes alone (n=267), and (3) family history of diabetes and CHD and/or stroke (n=978). RESULTS: After adjusting for age, gender, race, education and BMI, scores for perceived risk for diabetes (p<0.0001), CHD (p<0.0001) and stroke (p<0.0001) were lowest in Group 1 and highest in Group 3. Similar results were observed about worry for diabetes (p<0.0001), CHD (p<0.0001) and stroke (p<0.0001). Perceptions of control or severity for diabetes, CHD or stroke did not vary across the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals at increased familial risk for diabetes, having family members affected with CHD and/or stroke significantly influenced perceived risk and worry. Tailored lifestyle interventions for this group that assess health beliefs and emphasize approaches for preventing diabetes, as well as its vascular complications, may be an effective strategy for reducing the global burden of these serious but related chronic disorders.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for high risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing as an adjunct to cytology for cervical cancer screening differ by age group, because HR-HPV tests lack adequate specificity in women aged <30. Here, we assess age-group differences in HPV types and other risk factors for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) versus CIN0-2 in women from four colposcopy clinics. METHODS: Women ages 18-69 (n=1658) were enrolled and completed structured interviews to elicit data on behavioral risk factors prior to their examinations. HPV genotyping was performed on exfoliated cervical cell samples. We estimated relative risks (RR) for HPV types and cofactors for CIN3+, overall and stratified by age group. RESULTS: After 2 years of follow-up, we identified 178 CIN3+, 1305 CIN0-2, and 175 indeterminate outcomes. Non-vaccine HR-HPV types were only associated with CIN3+ among women ≥30 (RR=2.3, 95% CI 1.5-3.4; <30: RR=0.9). Among all HR-HPV positive women, adjusting for age, significant cofactors for CIN3+ included current smoking (RR=1.5), former smoking (RR=1.8), regular Pap screening (RR=0.7), current regular condom use (RR=0.5), and parity ≥5 (RR=1.6, p-trend for increasing parity=.07). However, the parity association differed by age group (≥30: RR=1.8, p-trend=.008; <30: RR=0.9, p-trend=.55). CONCLUSIONS: Subgroup variation by age in the risk of CIN3+ points to the importance of the timing of exposures in relation to CIN3+ detection. IMPACT: Future screening strategies need to consider natural history and secular trends in cofactor prevalence in the pursuit of appropriately sensitive and specific screening tools applied to appropriate age groups.

BACKGROUND: Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types is necessary for the development of high-grade cervical dysplasia and cervical carcinoma. The presence of HPV DNA in the blood of cervical cancer patients has been reported; however, whether HPV DNA is detectable in the blood of patients with pre-invasive cervical disease is unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to determine if HPV 16 and HPV 18 DNA could be detected in the serum of colposcopy clinic patients, and if serum HPV detection was associated with grade of cervical disease and HPV cofactors. STUDY DESIGN: Samples were selected from a biorepository collected from non-pregnant, HIV-negative women ages 18-69 attending colposcopy clinics at two urban public hospitals. Cervical disease status was based on review of colposcopy, biopsy and cytology findings. Serum HPV DNA detection was conducted using a novel PCR and mass spectroscopy-based assay. RESULTS: Of the 116 adequate serum samples, all (100%) were negative for HPV 16 and HPV 18. Over half (51.7%) of participants had cervical HPV 16 and/or HPV 18 infection. Nearly one-third (31.1%) had high grade, 10.3% had low grade, and 50.9% had no cervical disease. Nearly one-third (28.5%) had ever regularly smoked cigarettes, 70.7% had early onset of sexual intercourse, and 75% had ever used oral contraceptives. CONCLUSIONS: In this colposcopy clinic population with a range of clinical characteristics and established HPV cofactors, HPV DNA was undetectable in their serum. Our findings suggest that serum HPV DNA detection is not a cervical cancer screening tool.

Acheson Louise S, Wang Catharine, Zyzanski Stephen J, Lynn Audrey, Ruffin Mack T, Gramling Robert, Rubinstein Wendy S, O'Neill Suzanne M, Nease Donald E, . Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 2010 12(4) 212-8

CONTEXT: Family history is a risk factor for many common chronic diseases, yet it remains underutilized in primary care practice. BACKGROUND: Family Healthware is a self-administered, web-based tool that assesses familial risk for CHD; stroke; diabetes; and colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer, and provides a personalized prevention plan based on familial risk. The Family Healthware Impact Trial evaluated the tool. DESIGN: In this cluster RCT, participants completed baseline and 6-month follow-up surveys. The intervention group used Family Healthware directly after the baseline survey. Controls used the tool after completing the follow-up survey. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 35-65 years with no known diagnosis of these six diseases were enrolled from 41 primary care practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The prevalence of family-history-based risk for coronary heart disease (CHD); stroke; diabetes; and colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer was determined in a primary care population. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2007, 3786 participants enrolled. Data analysis was undertaken from September 2007 to March 2008. Participants had a mean age of 50.6 years and were primarily white (91%) women (70%). Of the 3585 participants who completed the risk assessment tool, 82% had a strong or moderate familial risk for at least one of the diseases: CHD (strong=33%, moderate=26%); stroke (strong=15%, moderate=34%); diabetes (strong=11%, moderate=26%); colorectal cancer (strong=3%, moderate=11%); breast cancer (strong=10%, moderate=12%); and ovarian cancer (strong=4%, moderate=6%). Women had a significantly (p<0.04) higher familial risk than men for all diseases except colorectal and ovarian cancer. Overweight participants were significantly (p<or=0.02) more likely to have a strong family history for CHD, stroke, and diabetes. Older participants were significantly (p<or=0.02) more likely to report a strong family history for CHD and stroke as well as colorectal and breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This self-administered, online tool delineated a substantial burden of family-history-based risk for these chronic diseases in an adult, primary care population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00164658.