DOI 10.1016/j.medmal.2005.02.013
[Anal condyloma prevalence among HIV infected patients].
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
In the general HIV-infected population, there are few data on the prevalence and risk factors for anal condyloma, precursor lesions for anal cancer.
METHODS
Screening for perianal and endoanal condyloma with an anoscopy was systematically proposed to 516 consecutive outpatients, followed in a university hospital in Paris. For each point, HIV characteristics and sexual behaviors assessed through semi-directive questionnaire were collected.
FINDINGS: The 473 (92%) examined patients, consisted of 200 homosexual men, 123 heterosexual men, 150 women; 76% were receiving HAART, HIV-RNA was<50 copies/ml in 60%, mean (+/-SD) CD4 cell count were 484 (+/-274)/mm(3). Overall, 108 (23%) pts had histologically-confirmed anal condyloma (36, 15 and 11% of the respective populations), including 51 (47%) pts with only endoanal localisation. Intraepithelial neoplasia of grade I was noted in 59 patients, of grade II in 10 and of grade III in 2 and an invasive endoanal cancer in 1. In multivariate regression analysis, condyloma independent risk factor were history of gonococcia or syphilis (OR=0.54 (0.29-0.99)), and history of previous anal condyloma (OR=2.05 (1.07-3.92) in homosexual men, history of previous penis condyloma (OR=26.8 (2.3-309.6), and unprotected sexual intercourse (OR=7.5 (2.1-26.3)) in heterosexual men and CD4 cell count below 200/mm(3), (OR=8.9 (1.5-51.6)), receptive anal intercourse (OR=6.7 (1.7-25.8)) and history of previous anal condyloma (OR=25.4 (3.4-188.2)) in women.
INTERPRETATION: In the HAART era, systematic screening revealed a high rate of anal condyloma in all HIV positive pts (not only in homosexual men). Anal examination should be proposed systematically to all HIV-infected patients.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.