Prevalence, Genotype Distribution and Risk Factors for Cervical Human Papillomavirus Infection in the Grand Tunis Region, Tunisia

Abstract

Implementation of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination should be considered a key cervical cancer prevention strategy in Tunisia, where Pap smear screening is not efficient. This study aims to estimate the prevalence and to identify risk factors associated with HPV infection among women from Grand Tunis, Tunisia. We conducted a cross-sectional study, between December 2012 and May 2013. Eligible women for this study were those aged 18–65 years, sexually active, who sought medical attention at their primary health care centre or clinic in Grand Tunis, Tunisia and who gave written consent. A liquid-based Pap smear sample was obtained from all women using a cervical brush. Only women with betaglobin positive test were further analysed for HPV detection and typing. A nested-PCR of the L1 region was performed followed by reverse line blot hybridization to facilitate the specific detection of 31 HPV genotypes. Multiple logistic regression modeling was used for the analysis of associations between variables with some considered possible confounders after checking for interactions. A total of 391 women were enrolled in this study and 325 out of the 391 cervical samples were positive for the betaglobin test. Overall HPV prevalence was 13.2% [9.8%−17.5%], with the following most prevalent HPV genotypes: HPV6 (40%), HPV40 (14%), HPV16 (12%), HPV52 (9%), HPV31 and HPV59 (7%), followed by HPV68 (4%). Mean age of HPV positive women was 40.7±0.92 years. Independently associated risk factors of HPV infection were smoking (OR:2.8 [0.8–9.6]), low income (OR:9.6 [1.4–63.4), bad housing type (OR:2.5 [1–6.8]), partner with multiple sexual relationship (OR:4.5 [0.9–22.9]) and single women (widowed, divorced, separated, never married) (OR:6.9 [1.1–42.2]). This study provides the first national-based estimate of HPV prevalence in Tunisia. Our findings contribute to the evidence on the current burden of HPV infection, the critical role of sexual behaviour and socioeconomic status and call for increased support for the screening program in Tunisia to prevent cervical cancer. These results allow us to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vaccine program implementation in Tunisia in future.

Mucosal human papillomavirus detection and TP53 immunohistochemical expression in non‐melanoma skin cancer in Tunisian patients

“…The prevalence of HPV infection was slightly higher in patients over 60 years old. This is in line with published data and may be the result of an age‐related natural deterioration of the immune system, which could facilitate both viral infection and reactivation in elderly individuals . We found no significant association between mHPV positivity and sex or ultraviolet exposure …”

Prevalence of human papillomavirus infection in women in Bulgaria: A 2017 update

“…Among women aged 25‐34 years, the frequency of infection with HPV was 28.1%, which is only slightly higher than expected or known for Eastern Europe. Of note, the incidence rates gradually and steadily decreased with age and did not show two peaks of incidence, as observed at a young age and after 50 years of age in other studies …”

“…Of note, the incidence rates gradually and steadily decreased with age and did not show two peaks of incidence, as observed at a young age and after 50 years of age in other studies. 9 Previous surveys of HPV in Bulgaria were often limited to women from a certain city or area or were designed to investigate the spread of 43.2% were found to be infected, as were 36.6% of women aged 15-24 years. 12 Shikova et al 3 also surveyed HPV in different age groups in Bulgaria, but only among prostitutes, and found that cervical HPV infection was most frequent in women aged 28 years.…”

Relationship between the risk factors for human papillomavirus infection and lower genital tract precursor lesion and cancer development in female transplant recipients

“…Upon comparing this prevalence with the 17 literature articles in the general population, there was a statistically significant difference between the value found in the study (54.5%) with all results (13.7%‐40.6%).…”