No abstract

BackgroundInformation on human papillomavirus (HPV) type distribution is necessary to evaluate the potential impact of current and future HPV vaccines. We estimated the relative contribution (RC) to invasive cervical cancer (ICC) and precancerous cervical lesions of the nine HPV types (HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58) included in an HPV vaccine currently under development.MethodsEstimations on ICC were based on an international study of 8,977 HPV positive cases and estimations on precancerous cervical lesions were extracted from a published meta-analysis including 115,789 HPV positive women. Globocan 2008 and 2010 World Population Prospects were used to estimate current and future projections of new ICC cases.ResultsRC of the 9 HPV types in ICC was 89.4%, with 18.5% of cases positive for HPV 31/33/45/52/58. Regional variations were observed. RCs varied by histology, ranging between 89.1% in squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) and 95.5% in adenocarcinomas (ADC). HPV 16/18/45 were detected in 94.2% of ADC. RC of the 9 types altogether decreased with age (trend test p < 0.0001), driven by the decrease in older ages of HPV 16/18/45. In contrast, the RC of HPV 31/33/52/58 increased with age. Due to population growth alone, projected estimates of ICC cases attributable to the 9 types are expected to rise from 493,770 new cases in 2012 to 560,887 new cases in 2025.The RCs of individual high risk HPV types varied by cytological and histological grades of HPV-positive precancerous cervical lesions, and there was an under representation of HPV 18 and 45 compared to ICC.ConclusionsThe addition of HPV 31/33/45/52/58 to HPV types included in current vaccines could prevent almost 90% of ICC cases worldwide. If the nine-valent vaccine achieves the same degree of efficacy than previous vaccines, world incidence rates could be substantially reduced.

No abstract

This large cohort had sufficient power to identify 18 risk factors that independently predicted a significantly increased risk of falling with a graded increase in risk with increasing number of risk factors.

BackgroundDespite CDC recommendations regarding universal catch-up vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV), only about ten percent of young adult women in the United States have been vaccinated. The purpose of this study was to better understand reasons for non-vaccination among insured 19-26 year-old women and to evaluate future vaccination intentions.MethodsWe used an administrative claims database from a large US managed care plan to identify women aged 19-26 for receipt of a mailed survey. From a sample of 1,375 women with no evidence of HPV vaccination from June 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007, 222 completed surveys were received, of which 185 were eligible for this analysis. The main outcome measures were unvaccinated women's attitudes and vaccine awareness, likelihood of future action regarding the vaccine, and reasons for inaction.ResultsAmong the 185 non-vaccinees, 25.4% were married, 83.2% were white, and 89.2% had a college or higher level education. The vaccine was described as very important by 32.4% of subjects, and 30.1% had discussed the vaccine with a doctor and received a doctor's recommendation. Half or fewer of respondents were "very" or "extremely" likely to discuss the vaccine with their doctor (50.0%), do additional research on the vaccine (42.6%), ask a doctor to get the vaccine (37.5%), or make an appointment to get the vaccine (27.8%), while 48.0% were "somewhat", "very", or "extremely" likely to do nothing to get the vaccine. Among the latter, reasons for taking no action included being married or in a monogamous relationship (54.9%), belief that the vaccine is too new (35.4%), not having enough information about the vaccine (31.7%), concerns about side effects (24.4%), and uncertainty about insurance coverage (24.4%).ConclusionsEducational interventions may be needed to enhance HPV vaccination rates among 19-26 year-old women, particularly regarding information about vaccine safety, vaccine efficacy, insurance coverage, and the value of vaccination to women in monogamous relationships.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations, osteoporosis screening rates among women aged 65 years and older remain low. We present results from a clustered, randomized trial evaluating patient mailed reminders, alone and in combination with physician prompts, to improve osteoporosis screening and treatment.METHODS: Primary care clinics (n=15) were randomized to usual care, mailed reminders alone, or mailed reminders with physician prompts. Study patients were females aged 65-89 years (N=10,354). Using automated clinical and pharmacy data, information was collected on bone mineral density testing, pharmacy dispensings, and other patient characteristics. Unadjusted/adjusted differences in testing and treatment were assessed using generalized estimating equation approaches.RESULTS: Osteoporosis screening rates were 10.8% in usual care, 24.1% in mailed reminder, and 28.9% in mailed reminder with physician prompt. Results adjusted for differences at baseline indicated that mailed reminders significantly improved testing rates compared to usual care, and that the addition of prompts further improved testing. This effect increased with patient age. Treatment rates were 5.2% in usual care, 8.4% in mailed reminders, and 9.1% in mailed reminders with prompt. No significant differences were found in treatment rates between those receiving mailed reminders alone or in combination with physician prompts. However, women receiving usual care were significantly less likely to be treated. CONCLUSIONS:The use of mailed reminders, either alone or with physician prompts, can significantly improve osteoporosis screening and treatment rates among insured primary care patients (Clinical Trials. gov number NCT00139425).

The experience of troublesome side effects and patient beliefs regarding the effectiveness and safety of oral bisphosphonate medications prescribed for them are strongly associated with bisphosphonate non-adherence. Improving adherence to oral bisphosphonates may require providers to solicit and address patients' medication beliefs and to proactively address side effects. Limitations of our study include: (1) the study sample is not likely to be a national random sample of bisphosphonate users, and (2) some evidence of non-response bias was observed.