Knowledge and awareness of human papillomavirus infection and human papillomavirus vaccine among Kazakhstani women attending gynecological clinics.

Cervical cancer remains one of the top causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality all over the world. Currently, however, there are no published studies to assess the knowledge of HPV and cervical cancer in Kazakhstan. This study aimed to assess the awareness of HPV, the knowledge of HPV as a cause of cervical cancer, and the awareness of HPV vaccination among Kazakhstani women visiting gynecological clinics across the country. In addition, the study aimed to identify the factors associated with the awareness of HPV and the HPV vaccine and knowledge of HPV as a major cause of cervical cancer. This was a cross-sectional survey-based study with 2,272 women aged between 18-70 years attending gynecological clinics, who were administered paper-based questionnaires. Data analysis included descriptive statistics consisting of mean values, standard deviations, and frequencies, where applicable. Differences in categorical variables between groups were analyzed using the Chi-square test with a significance value of <0.005. Crude odds ratio (OR) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% corresponding confidence intervals were calculated in regression analysis using univariate and multivariable logistic regression models. The mean age of participants was 36.33±10.09 years. More than half (53%) of the participants had been screened for cervical cancer. Among those who were aware of HPV, 46% knew that HPV causes cervical cancer and 52% were aware of the HPV vaccine. The key factors related to outcome variables were age, ethnicity, education, family, number of deliveries, and menarche. From a subgroup analysis, results from the HPV test and Pap smear test were factors related to dependent variables such as awareness of HPV and awareness of HPV vaccination.

Human papillomavirus vaccine uptake among young gay and bisexual men who have sex with men with a time-limited targeted vaccination programme through sexual health clinics in Melbourne in 2017.

OBJECTIVE: In mid-2017, the Victorian Government funded a free time-limited human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination catch-up programme for gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (MSM) aged up to 26 years through sexual health clinics or other immunisation centres. We aimed to examine the uptake of the HPV vaccine among young MSM attending the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre (MSHC). METHODS: MSM aged ≤26 attending MSHC between 27 April 2017 and 31 December 2017 were included in the analysis. HPV vaccine uptake was calculated based on the first consultation of each patient during the period. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine the association between vaccine uptake and patient factors. RESULTS: There were 2108 MSM aged ≤26 who attended MSHC over the study period, with 7.6% (n=161) reporting previous HPV vaccination. Of the 1947 eligible men, 1134 (58.2%, 95% CI 56.0% to 60.4%) were offered the vaccine by the clinicians, and 830 men received it on the day. The vaccine coverage among all eligible MSM was 42.6% (95% CI 40.4% to 44.9%; 830 of 1947) and among MSM who were offered the vaccine by the clinicians was 73.2% (95% CI 70.5% to 75.8%; 830 of 1134). Men with a history of genital warts (adjusted OR (aOR)=3.11, 95%CI 1.39 to 6.99) and those who had >4male partners in the last 12 months (aOR=1.38, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.85) were more likely to receive the HPV vaccine on the day. 304 men declined the vaccine; most men did not specify the reason (31.3%, n=95), while 27.3% (n=83) needed time to think. CONCLUSION: Although vaccine uptake was 73.2% among those offered, the actual coverage of those eligible remained unsatisfactory (42.6%) in a sexual health clinic. This highlights a clinic-based targeted MSM programme may not reach sufficiently high vaccine coverage to provide MSM with the same vaccine benefits as heterosexuals.

HIV-positive gay men's knowledge and perceptions of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and HPV vaccination: A qualitative study.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection worldwide. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) living with HIV are disproportionately impacted by HPV-associated anal cancer, with rates about 100-fold that of the general population. Fortunately, HPV vaccination has proven efficacy in preventing both anogenital warts (condyloma) in males and anal pre-cancers (anal intraepithelial neoplasia; AIN) in GBM up to the age of 26. We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 25 HIV-positive gay men in Toronto to gain an understanding of their knowledge and experiences related to HPV and the HPV vaccine. These participants were part of The HPV Screening and Vaccine Evaluation (HPV-SAVE) Study, and received invitations to have anal cancer screening from their primary care doctors. Interviews were analyzed following a Grounded Theory Approach. Most participants had not received the HPV vaccine. Men described a lack of prior knowledge of the health consequences of HPV for GBM living with HIV and financial barriers to vaccine access. Participants did not articulate concerns about vaccine safety. Men frequently reported initial beliefs that HPV was predominantly-or exclusively-a risk for females or young girls, and thus they had not considered the vaccine to be necessary. Some participants remained uncertain if the current availability of the vaccine, and their newly acquired knowledge of its importance, was "too little, too late" because of their age and/or HPV exposure. Improving access and uptake of HPV vaccination requires addressing both financial barriers to access as well as increasing HPV health literacy levels, particularly by reframing the long-standing gendered associations of HPV. Physicians should provide clear, tailored messages regarding HPV vaccination.

A Review of the Impact and Effectiveness of the Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: 10 Years of Clinical Experience in Canada.

Publicly funded administration of the quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine in school-aged girls was implemented for all Canadian provinces and territories between 2007 and 2009. However, the impact of female qHPV vaccination in Canada has yet to be evaluated. This systematic literature review of studies published between September 1, 2006 and September 1, 2016 looked at real-world evidence related to the effects of qHPV vaccination on prevalence of HPV infection and disease in Canada over the past decade. PubMed was searched for studies published between September 1, 2006 and September 1, 2016. Studies were eligible if one or more of the following outcomes were assessed in individuals receiving the qHPV vaccine though public immunization programs: HPV infection, anogenital warts (AGW), HPV-associated lesions of the anogenital tract. A "pre-public vaccination program" or "unvaccinated" reference group was required. Key HPV conference abstracts were also reviewed. We identified seven eligible studies representing five Canadian provinces. Results reported indicated that the prevalence of HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18 was lower in qHPV-vaccinated than unvaccinated individuals (1.5% vs. 11.0%, respectively), whereas non-vaccine-covered genotypes were comparable across vaccination status. Risk of AGW incidence decreased by up to 45% in vaccinated cohorts; incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 + was significantly reduced by up to 86% in the post-vaccine era. On the basis of these findings, HPV vaccination programs constitute a successful and effective public health initiative.

Making HPV vaccination available to girls everywhere.

Cervical cancer is currently the fourth leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide, with most cases occurring in low- and middle-income countries. Safe, highly effective vaccines against HPV have been on the market since 2006, yet only 6% of girls worldwide have received this life-saving cancer prevention intervention. International organizations, including PATH, Gavi, and the pharmaceutical companies Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, have provided support to eligible low- and middle-income countries to implement national HPV vaccination programs. Still, glaring disparities in the availability of national HPV vaccination programs and the coverage of the primary target population between the global north and south persist. We illustrate worldwide HPV vaccine implementation and coverage using an online data visualization, which is publicly available and can be used to gain unique insights. We also present three emerging solutions to transform future HPV vaccine delivery in low- and middle-income countries: low-cost generics, single-dose vaccination, and co-administration with other adolescent vaccines. By rapidly expanding access to HPV vaccination to girls everywhere, vaccine-type HPV infections can be virtually eliminated. At high vaccination-coverage levels, more than 80%-or approximately 230 000-of the cervical cancer deaths that occur each year can be averted.

Estado vacunal y motivos de no vacunación contra el virus del papiloma humano en adolescentes admitidas en el Hospital Pediátrico del Centro Hospitalario Pereira Rossell / Vaccination status and reasons for non-vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) in adolescents admitted at the Pereira Rossell Hospital Center Pediatrics Hospital / Estado vacinal e motivos de não vacinação contra o vírus papiloma humano em adolescentes admitidas no Hospital Pediátrico do Centro Hospitalario Pereira Rossell

Introducción: en Uruguay se ofrece gratuitamente una vacuna tetravalente contra el virus del papiloma humano (VPH) a todas las adolescentes de 12 años o mayores. Las coberturas logradas no han sido las esperadas. Objetivo: describir el estado vacunal contra el VPH, motivos de no vacunación y reporte de efectos adversos en las adolescentes hospitalizadas en un centro de referencia en Uruguay. Material y método: estudio descriptivo mediante encuesta anónima a adolescentes de 12 años o mayores hospitalizadas en cuidados moderados del Hospital Pediátrico del Centro Hospitalario Pereira Rossell durante el segundo semestre de 2016. Se excluyeron las adolescentes que se negaron a participar, las portadoras de retardo mental o pasibles de cuidados paliativos. Se analizó: edad, estado vacunal contra VPH, motivos de no vacunación y de rechazo a la vacuna, efectos adversos. Fue aprobado por el Comité de Ética de la institución. Resultados: se encuestaron 112 adolescentes. Edad media: 13,5 años (12-14,6). Reportaron recibir al menos una dosis de la vacuna contra VPH: 45/112 (40,1%). Motivo de no vacunación más frecuente reportado: desconocimiento de la existencia de la vacuna: 48/67 (71,6%), seguido de rechazo o negativa de la adolescente o adulto responsable: 13/67 (19,4%). El principal motivo de rechazo a recibir la vacuna fue la falta de información: 7/13. No se registraron efectos adversos graves. Conclusiones: se observó una cobertura vacunal similar a datos nacionales. El conocimiento y la información de las adolescentes y sus cuidadores sobre esta vacuna fueron los principales motivos de no vacunación detectados.

Introduction: Uruguay offers a free HPV quadrivalent vaccine to adolescents 12 years of age or older. However, the vaccination rate was not as expected. Objective: to describe the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination status, the reasons for non-vaccination and to report adverse effects in hospitalized adolescents in a reference center in Uruguay. Materials and methods: descriptive study by means of an anonymous survey of adolescents of 12 years of age or older hospitalized in moderate care at Pereira Rossell Hospital Center during the second half of 2016. Adolescents who refused to participate were excluded from the study, as well as those with mental retardation and / or subject to palliative care. We analyzed: age, vaccination status against HPV, reasons for non-vaccination and vaccine hesitancy, and adverse effects. The research conducted was approved by the institution's ethics committee. Results: the survey was answered by 112 adolescents who met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 13.5 years old (12-14.6). 45/112 (40.1%). Adolescents reported having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. The most frequent reason for non-vaccination was: lack of knowledge of the vaccine in 48 out of 67 (71.6%), followed by rejection or rejection by the adolescent or responsible adult in 13 out of 67 (19.4%). The main reason for refusal to receive the vaccine reported was: lack of information (7/13). No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: vaccination coverage found was similar to national data. Knowledge and information of adolescents and their caregivers about this vaccine were the main reasons detected for non-vaccination.

Introdução: no Uruguai una vacina tetravalente contra o Vírus do Papiloma Humano (VPH) é oferecida gratuitamente a todas as adolescentes com 12 ou mais anos. A cobertura obtida não foi a esperada. Objetivo: descrever o estado vacinal contra o VPH, motivos de não vacinação e informação sobre efeitos adversos nas adolescentes hospitalizadas em um centro de referencia no Uruguai. Materiais e métodos: estudo descritivo, realizado com questionário anônimo respondido por adolescentes com 12 ou mais anos, internadas em cuidados intermediários do Hospital Pediátrico do Centro Hospitalario Pereira Rossell, durante o segundo semestre de 2016. Foram excluídas as adolescentes que não quiseram participar, as portadoras de deficiência mental e/ou passiveis de cuidados paliativos. As seguintes variáveis foram analisadas: idade, estado vacinal contra VPH, motivos de não vacinação e de rejeição à vacina e efeitos adversos. O estudo foi aprovado pelo comité de ética da instituição. Resultados: participaram 112 adolescentes com idade média 13,5 anos (12-14,6). 45 informaram ter recebido pelo menos uma dose da vacina contra VPH (45/112 - 40,1%). O motivo de não vacinação mais frequente foi o desconhecimento da existência da vacina 48/67 (71,6%), seguido de rejeição ou negativa da adolescente ou do adulto responsável 13/67 (19,4%). O motivo principal de rejeição a ser vacinada foi a falta de informação 7/13. Não foram registrados efeitos adversos graves. Conclusões: a cobertura vacinal registrada foi similar aos dados nacionais. O conhecimento e a informação das adolescentes e de seus cuidadores sobre esta vacina foram os principais motivos de não vacinação detectados.

Incorporação da Vacina contra o Papilomavírus Humano pelo Ministério da Saúde: uma análise do processo decisório / Incorporation of the Vaccine against the Human Papillomavirus by the Ministry of Health: an analysis of the decision-making process

A vacina contra o Papilomavírus Humano (HPV) protege contra quatro subtipos virais, sendo os subtipos 16 e 18 associados a cerca de 70% dos casos de câncer do colo de útero no mundo. A incorporação dessa vacina no Brasil ocorreu em um momento em que a avaliação de tecnologias em saúde se encontrava em institucionalização dentro do Ministério da Saúde. Esse estudo examinou o processo de incorporação da vacina Quadrivalente contra o HPV pelo Ministério da Saúde (MS), ocorrida no âmbito da Comissão Nacional de Incorporação de Tecnologias do SUS (CONITEC), a fim de (1) caracterizar o contexto político e institucional em que se deu esta decisão no país, identificando os principais atores envolvidos neste processo e suas posições e influências na tomada de decisão ocorrida; (2) mapear os critérios e fatores que foram considerados na decisão de introdução da vacina contra o HPV pelo governo brasileiro; (3) discutir os aspectos relacionados à implementação da vacina incorporada que foram considerados nos primeiros momentos de sua adoção no SUS. Foi conduzindo, assim, um estudo exploratório, com abordagem qualitativa, do tipo estudo de caso único. Os dados foram coletados através de análise de documentos governamentais, de projetos de lei legislativos e de oito entrevistas com atores-chave, identificados como participantes do processo através dos documentos ou referidos por outros entrevistados. A análise dos dados buscou identificar como ocorreu o processo; as arenas, governamentais ou não, onde foram travados os debates; as posições e os argumentos defendidos pelos atores e como foi realizada a análise pela CONITEC, procurando o entendimento do processo decisório como um todo. A vacina foi registrada pela Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária em 2006 e, desde então, somaram-se as pressões para sua incorporação ao sistema público de saúde, levando à formação de diversos grupos de trabalho, ao longo dos anos. Os resultados iniciais das evidências disponíveis recomendavam a não incorporação da vacina, devido às lacunas do conhecimento acerca de sua eficácia e segurança e devido ao alto impacto orçamentário para o SUS decorrente de seus elevados preços, além de problemas de viabilidade técnica para sua oferta pelo Programa Nacional de Imunizações (PNI). Um estudo de custo-efetividade mostrou em 2012 que a vacina era custo-efetiva ao sistema, mas, antes disso, a Secretaria de Vigilância à Saúde e outras secretarias já avaliavam sua introdução no PNI. A transferência de tecnologia via estabelecimento de uma Parceria de Desenvolvimento Produtivo e a redução de preço foram elementos fundamentais para essa decisão. A incorporação da vacina foi um processo longo, que se estendeu por anos, tendo ocorrido mesmo quando ainda persistiam diversas incertezas sobre seu potencial impacto na incidência de câncer de colo de útero. Embora a decisão tenha ocorrido no âmbito da CONITEC, as discussões se estenderam a diversas arenas, incluindo o meio acadêmico e o legislativo. A incorporação foi aprovada por unanimidade pelo Plenário da CONITEC. A decisão publicada em DOU em novembro de 2013 e sua oferta no PNI fora iniciada em março de 2014, utilizando uma estratégia mista ao incluir escolas e serviços de saúde. Desde então, as coberturas vacinais alcançadas têm estado muito abaixo das metas recomendadas para a vacina alcançar seus objetivos propostos, o que ameaça colocar, em risco futuro, seus objetivos pretendidos de reduzir a incidência do câncer de colo de útero

The vaccine against the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) offers protection against four viral subtypes, and from these the subtypes 16 and 18 are associated with about 70% of cases of cervical cancer in the world. The incorporation of this vaccine in Brazil occurred at a time when the evaluation of health technologies was institutionalized within the Ministry of Health. This study examined the process of incorporation of the Quadrivalent vaccine against HPV by the Ministry of Health (MS), that occurred within the National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies do SUS (CONITEC), in order to (1) characterize the political and institutional context in which this decision was made in the country, identifying the main actors involved in this process and their positions and influences in the decision-making; (2) map the criteria and factors that were considered in the decision to introduce the HPV vaccine by the Brazilian government; (3) discuss the aspects related to the implementation of the incorporated vaccine that were considered in the first moments of its adoption in the SUS. The exploratory study was conducted through a qualitative approach, of a single case study type. The data were collected through analysis of government documents, legislative bills and eight interviews with key actors, identified as process participants through the documents or referred by other interviewees. The analysis of the data sought to identify how the process occurred; the arenas, governmental or not, where the debates were held; the positions and arguments defended by the actors and how the analysis was carried out by CONITEC, seeking the understanding of the decision-making process as a whole. The vaccine was registered by the National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance in 2006 and, since then, added the pressures for its incorporation into the public health system, leading to the formation of several work groups over the years. The initial results of the available evidence do not recommend incorporation, due to the lack of knowledge about its efficacy and reliability and the high budgetary impact for the SUS due to its high prices and problems of technical feasibility for its offer by the National Program of Immunizations (PNI). A cost-effectiveness study showed in 2012 that the vaccine was cost-effective to the system, but before that the Department of Health Surveillance and other departments already evaluated its introduction in the PNI. The transfer of technology through the establishment of a Productive Development Partnership and the reduction of prices were fundamental elements for this decision. The incorporation of the vaccine was a long process, which lasted for years, occurring even when there were still uncertainties about its potential impact on the incidence of cervical cancer. Although the decision had occurred within CONITEC, the discussions have extended to several arenas, including the academia and legislative environment. The incorporation was unanimously approved by the CONITEC Plenary, the decision published in the DOU in November 2013, and its offer in the PNI was initiated in March 2014, which used a mixed strategy, including schools and health services. Since then, the vaccine coverage achieved has been far below the targets recommended for the vaccine to reach its proposed goals, risking its intended future goals of reducing the incidence of cervical cancer

Ending cervical cancer: A call to action.

The outlook for elimination of the scourge of cervical cancer is bright, because we now have the tools to achieve this goal. In recent years human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in high-income countries has resulted in dramatic decreases in HPV infection and associated cervical disease. If all countries with a substantial burden of disease introduce the vaccine nationally, we can protect the vast majority of women and girls most at risk. For women who are beyond the vaccination target age, progress has been made in screening and treatment for cervical precancer, but we must accelerate this momentum to reduce incidence and mortality worldwide to the very low rates found in wealthier countries. Human and financial resources must be increased and directed to programs that follow best practices and reach all women, including the marginalized or disadvantaged. Seven key actions are recommended. Now is the time for action at national, regional, and global levels.

The investment case for cervical cancer elimination.

We already know what causes cervical cancer, how to prevent it, and how to treat it, even in resource-constrained settings. Inequitable access to human papillomavirus vaccine for girls and screening and precancer treatment for women in low- and middle-income countries is unacceptable on ethical, social, and financial grounds. The burden of cervical cancer falls on the poor and extends beyond the narrow bounds of the family, affecting national economic development and community life, as family resources are drained and poverty tightens its grip. Proven solutions are available and the priorities for the next few years are clear, as shown by the papers in this Supplement. Sustained political commitment and strategic investments in cervical cancer prevention can not only save millions of lives over the next 10 years, but can also pave the way for the broader fight against all cancers.

Advocacy, communication, and partnerships: Mobilizing for effective, widespread cervical cancer prevention.

Both human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and screening/treatment are relatively simple and inexpensive to implement at all resource levels, and cervical cancer screening has been acknowledged as a "best buy" by the WHO. However, coverage with these interventions is low where they are needed most. Failure to launch or expand cervical cancer prevention programs is by and large due to the absence of dedicated funding, along with a lack of recognition of the urgent need to update policies that can hinder access to services. Clear and sustained communication, robust advocacy, and strategic partnerships are needed to inspire national governments and international bodies to action, including identifying and allocating sustainable program resources. There is significant momentum for expanding coverage of HPV vaccination and screening/preventive treatment in low-resource settings as evidenced by new global partnerships espousing this goal, and the participation of groups that previously had not focused on this critical health issue.

Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses for combinations of prevention strategies against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection: a general trend.

BACKGROUND: Due to the arrival of multi-valent HPV vaccines, it is more and more important to have a better understanding of the relationship between vaccination and screening programmes. This review aimed to: (1) collect published evidence on the cost-effectiveness profile of different HPV prevention strategies and, in particular, those combining vaccination with changes in screening practices; (2) explore the cost-effectiveness of alternative preventive strategies based on screening and vaccination. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in order to identify the relevant studies regarding the cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies against HPV infection. Analysis comparing the modelling approaches between studies was made along with an assessment of the magnitude of impact of several factors on the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies. RESULTS: A total of 18 papers were quantitatively summarised within the narrative. A high degree of heterogeneity was found in terms of how HPV prevention strategies have been assessed in terms of their economic and epidemiological impact, with variation in screening practice and valence of HPV vaccination found to have large implications in terms of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrated synergies between screening and vaccination. New prevention strategies involving multi-valence vaccination, HPV DNA test screening, delayed commencement and frequency of screening could be implemented in the future. Strategies implemented in the future should be chosen with care, and informed knowledge of the potential impact of all possible prevention strategies. Highlighted in this review is the difficulty in assessing multiple strategies. Appropriate modelling techniques will need to be utilised to assess the most cost-effective strategies.