Prevalencia de genotipos del virus del papiloma humano de alto riesgo no vacunables dentro del programa de Detección Precoz de Cáncer de Cérvix en Cantabria / Prevalence of non-vaccinable high risk genotypes of human papillomavirus in the Early Detection of Cervical Cancer Program in Cantabria

OBJETIVO: Estimar la prevalencia de infección por genotipos del virus del papiloma humano (VPH) de alto riesgo no vacunables. DISEÑO: Estudio descriptivo transversal. Emplazamiento: Siete centros de salud de Cantabria seleccionados aleatoriamente. PARTICIPANTES: Se incluyó a todas las mujeres con una citología vaginal valorable (n = 3.359) entre 2010-2011. MEDICIONES PRINCIPALES: Se recogieron diagnóstico citológico, resultado de PCR y método anticonceptivo. Los resultados de las citologías se clasificaron con el sistema Bethesda. Para la tipificación de VPH según el riesgo oncogénico se utilizó la clasificación de Muñoz et al. Se estimaron proporciones y odds ratio (OR) con sus correspondientes intervalos de confianza al 95% (IC95%). RESULTADOS: La prevalencia de infección por VPH fue del 2,71% (IC95%: 2,15-3,27). La prevalencia de genotipos de VPH de alto riesgo oncogénico fue del 2,26%; (IC95%: 1,75-2,78). El genotipo más frecuente fue el 16 (28,89%). Más de la mitad de las mujeres fueron positivas para algún genotipo de alto riesgo no vacunable: 51 (18,89%) o 58 (13,33%) o 68 (12,22%) o 31 (11,11%). En el 23,33% de las mujeres coexistieron al menos 2 genotipos de alto riesgo no vacunables. Las mujeres más jóvenes (≤ 30 años) tuvieron 2 veces más riesgo de infección por cualquier VPH: OR 2,01; (IC95%: 1,02-3,96); y 2 veces más probabilidad de usar anticonceptivos hormonales frente al preservativo: OR 2,09; (IC95%: 1,64-2,67). CONCLUSIONES: Atendiendo al alto porcentaje de VPH de alto riesgo oncogénico no vacunable, habría que replantear la estrategia de prevención en la población, que podría tener una falsa sensación de protección

OBJECTIVE: To assess the persistence of treatment with monthly risedronate and know the reasons of persistence and nontherapeutic persistence and the profile of the non-persistent patients. Desing: Observational, postmarketin and prospective study. LOCATION: Primary care, traumatology, rheumatology, gynecology and geriatrics of Catalonia. PARTICIPANTS: Women with osteoporosis treated with monthly risedronate that previously had abandoned weekly bisphosphonate therapy. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of patients on persistent monthly risedronate year of their prescription, reasons for persistent and non persistent and profile of non persistent patients in relation to biodemographic data, clinical data and risk factors for fracture. RESULTS: 289 evaluable patients with a mean age of 68.3. At 12 months of initiation with monthly risedronate, 58.1% of patients remained on treatment. Most frequent reasons for leaving: fear of having side effects and belief that the disease is typical of the age. Reasons remarkable persistence: comfort/ease and dosage. Significant differences were observed between persistent and non-persistent patients relative to: employment status, number of concomitant therapy and height; however the results of possible associated factors must be contextualized within the study characteristics and the difference in size does not seem clinically relevant. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of therapeutic patterns more comfortable as monthly risedronate in osteoporosis, could facilitate persistence in patients improving the effectiveness of the drug. However in that persistence can also influence biodemographic and clinical variables and diverse of various kinds

[Prevalence of non-vaccinable high risk genotypes of human papillomavirus in the Early Detection of Cervical Cancer Program in Cantabria]. / Prevalencia de genotipos del virus del papiloma humano de alto riesgo no vacunables dentro del programa de Detección Precoz de Cáncer de Cérvix en Cantabria.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of infection with non-vaccinable high risk genotypes of human papillomavirus (HPV). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. LOCATION: Seven randomly selected health centres in Cantabria (Northern Spain). PARTICIPANTS: All women with an evaluable vaginal smear (n=3,359) between 2010 and 2011. MAIN MEASURES: The variables collected were cytological diagnosis, PCR results, and family planning method. The vaginal smear results were classified with the Bethesda system. The classification by Muñoz et al. was used for typing as oncogenic risk HPV. Proportions and odds ratio (OR) were estimated with corresponding confidence intervals at 95% (95% CI). RESULTS: The prevalence of HPV infection was 2.71% (95% CI: 2.15 to 3.27). The prevalence of high oncogenic risk HPV genotypes was 2.26%; (95% CI: 1.75 to 2.78). The most frequent genotype was 16 (28.89%). More than half of the women were positive for one of the non-vaccinable high risk genotypes: 51 (18.89%) and 58 (13.33%) and 68 (12.22%) or 31 (11.11%). At least two non-vaccinable high-risk genotypes co-existed in 23.33% of women. Younger women (≤30 years) had twice the risk of any HPV infection: OR 2.01 (95% CI: 1.02 to 3.96); and were twice as likely to use condoms compared to hormonal contraceptives, OR 2.09 (95% CI: 1.64 to 2.67). CONCLUSIONS: According to the high percentage of non-vaccinable high oncogenic risk HPV types, there should be a re-think of the prevention strategy in the population, who may have a false sense of protection.