Objective The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in women treated for infertility and oocyte donors, and to investigate the possible influence of HPV infection on reproductive outcomes. Study design In this observational laboratory-based study, cervical swabs were collected from oocyte donors (n = 207), and women treated for infertility (n = 945) and analysed for the presence of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) genotypes using the cobas® 4800 HPV Test and PapilloCheck® HPV-Screening. Associations between hrHPV positive status and fertility outcome or socio-behavioral and health characteristics were evaluated using R statistical software. Results HrHPV prevalence was significantly higher in oocyte donors than in women treated for infertility (28.0% vs . 16.1%, P <  0.001). Women who became pregnant spontaneously (19.6%) and women not treated with in vitro fertilization (IVF, 18.1%) were more frequently hrHPV positive than women treated with IVF (12.7%, P = 0.077). Despite the high prevalence of hrHPV in both oocyte donors and infertile women, no associations between hrHPV positive status and pregnancy or abortion rates were found in IVF treated women or in oocyte recipients. Moreover, no associations between hrHPV positive status and abortion rates were found in spontaneously pregnant women. Conclusion Despite the high prevalence of hrHPV in both oocyte donors and infertile women, HPV infection did not influence the outcomes of assisted reproductive technology.

High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infection is a cause of cervical cancer development. The addition of hrHPV testing to cervical cancer screening and monitoring of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia treatment improves the efficacy of screening and treatment, respectively. Self-sampling for hrHPV testing seems a promising tool for increasing patient participation in cervical cancer screening. In this project, 1198 cervical swabs obtained by physicians and 176 cervicovaginal swabs obtained by self-sampling (not collected in parallel) were analyzed for the presence of 14 hrHPV genotypes using three commercially available assays in comparison. HPV DNA was detected in 21.2% of all samples (21% of cervical swabs and 22.7% of cervicovaginal swabs). The cobas 4800 HPV Test was the most sensitive (0.983) and specific (0.992) for hrHPV detection overall. The PapilloCheck HPV-Screening and LMNX Genotyping Kit HPV GP had comparable specificity with that of the cobas (0.989 and 0.955, respectively), but lesser sensitivity (0.897 and 0.909, respectively). In physician-obtained cervical swabs, the cobas showed the highest sensitivity and specificity (0.980 and 0.994, respectively) for hrHPV detection, whereas in cervicovaginal swabs, the cobas had the highest sensitivity (1.00), but the PapilloCheck had the highest specificity (0.993). In conclusion, all of the detection methods evaluated were highly sensitive and specific for hrHPV detection from both clinician-collected cervical swabs and self-sampled cervicovaginal swabs.

Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) has been shown to adversely affect human reproduction. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in men and its correlation with semen parameters and reproductive outcomes. Methods Semen samples and penile swabs were collected from potential sperm donors (SD, n = 97) and male partners of infertile couples (IM, n = 328). The presence of HPV DNA in semen samples and penile swabs was analyzed. Associations between hrHPV positive status and fertility outcomes as well as socio-behavioral and health characteristics were evaluated using the R software package. Results High-risk HPV (hrHPV) genotypes were detected in 28.9% of SD and 35.1% of IM (P = 0.312). Penile swabs were more frequently positive for hrHPV genotypes than semen samples in both IM (32.3% vs. 11.9%, P < 0.001) and SD (26.8% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.006). Men with hrHPV positive semen samples had lower semen volume (median volume 2.5 ml vs. 3 ml, P = 0.009), sperm concentration (median concentration 16 × 106/ml vs. 31 × 106/ml, P = 0.009) and total sperm count (median count 46 × 106 vs. 82 × 106, P = 0.009) than men with hrHPV negative samples. No association was identified between penile hrHPV status and semen parameters. Conclusions Our findings indicate that penile HPV infection is common in both potential sperm donors and men from infertile couples. Although HPV positivity is higher in penile swabs, only HPV infection in semen samples affects sperm parameters. However, there was no association between hrHPV positivity in semen and fertility outcomes including abortion rate.