Background
Although, there is a variable burden of human papillomavirus (HPV) in women infected with HIV in developing countries, there are few studies that attempted to surmise such variable evidences. This review aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of HPV genotype distribution and risk factors contributing to HPV infection among women infected with HIV in low- and middle-income countries.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted in developing countries and reported HPV prevalence. We searched electronic databases: PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, Excerpta Medical Database from Elsevier, Web of science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and allied Health Sciences and Google scholar databases to retrieve primary studies published in English language till 11th August 2019. We used random-effects model to estimate the pooled prevalence of HPV genotypes, and funnel plot to assess publication bias. The registration number of this review study protocol is CRD42019123549.
Results
We included nineteen studies with a total of 8,175 participants in this review. The prevalence of HPV was extremely heterogeneous across the studies (χ2= 3782.80, p value < 0.001, I2 = 99.6%). The estimated pooled prevalence of all HPV genotypes was 63.0% (95% CI: 48.0–78.0) while the pooled prevalence of high risk and low risk HPV genotypes were 51.0% (95% CI: 38.0–63.0) and 28.0% (95% CI: 12.0–43.0), respectively. The pooled prevalence of HPV genotype 16 was 20%, while genotype 18 and 52 were 15% and 13%, respectively. Different risk factors reported for HPV infection and the frequently reported were low CD4 count below 200 cells/mm3 and high HIV viral load.
Conclusion
The pooled prevalence of HPV among HIV infected women in low- and middle-income countries was considerable and the proportion of high risk HPV genotypes were high when compared with low risk genotypes. Therefore, it is essential for the HPV prevention program to prevent the double burden of HPV and HIV in women.
Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of visual inspection with acetic acid compared with Human papillomavirus Deoxyribonucleic acid (HPV DNA) testing among women with HIV in Ethiopia. Methods A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted to address the aforementioned objective. Data were collected from January to October 2021, to compare the performance of these two screening modalities. Trained clinicians collected cervical specimens and immediately applied acetic acid for visual inspection. The HPV DNA testing was done using Abbott m2000rt/SP by trained laboratory professionals in accredited laboratories. A total of 578 women with HIV aged 25-49 years were included. Results Test positivity was 8.9% using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and 23.3% using HPV DNA test. The sensitivity and specificity of the VIA test were 19.2% and 95.1%, respectively. The strength of agreement between the two screening methods was poor (k = .184). The burden of genetic distribution of high risk HPV16 was 6.1%, and HPV18 was 1.1%. Other high risk HPV types (ie non-HPV 16/18 high risk HPV genotypes) were predominant in this study (18.6%). Conclusion The higher positivity result using HPV DNA testing compared with VIA, and low sensitivity of VIA are indicating that the implementation of HPV DNA testing as the primary screening strategy is likely to reduce cervical cancer cases and deaths of women in the country.
Conclusions The evolution in CLIF-SOFA score between D2 and D5/7 is superior to evolution in other scores and scores assessed at single time points when predicting 90 day survival. The delta C-SOFA at D5 and D7 are comparable, thus delta C-SOFA D2-D5 may be used to guide therapeutic decisions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.