Human Papillomavirus Infections and Increased Risk of Incident Osteoporosis: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study.

Patients with viral infections are susceptible to osteoporosis. This cohort study investigated the correlation between human papillomavirus (HPV) infections and the risk of osteoporosis via 12,936 patients with new-onset HPV infections and propensity score-matched non-HPV controls enrolled in Taiwan. The primary endpoint was incident osteoporosis following HPV infections. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine the effect of HPV infections on the risk of osteoporosis. Patients with HPV infections presented with a significantly high risk of osteoporosis (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.06-1.65) after adjusting for sex, age, comorbidities and co-medications. Subgroup analysis provided that populations at risk of HPV-associated osteoporosis were females (aHR = 1.33; 95% CI = 1.04-1.71), those aged between 60 and 80 years (aHR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.01-2.08 for patients aged 60-70; aHR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.07-2.12 for patients aged 70-80), and patients with long-term use of glucocorticoids (aHR = 2.17; 95% CI = 1.11-4.22). HPV-infected patients who did not receive treatments for HPV infections were at a greater risk (aHR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.09-1.80) of osteoporosis, while the risk of osteoporosis in those who received treatments for HPV infections did not reach statistical significance (aHR = 1.14; 95% CI = 0.78-1.66). Patients with HPV infections presented with a high risk of subsequent osteoporosis. Treatments for HPV infections attenuated the risk of HPV-associated osteoporosis.

Gender differences in health protective behaviours and its implications for COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan: a population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection produces more severe symptoms and a higher mortality in men than in women. The role of biological sex in the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is believed to explain this sex disparity. However, the contribution of gender factors that influence health protective behaviors and therefore health outcomes, remains poorly explored. METHODS: We assessed the contributions of gender in attitudes towards the COVID-19 pandemic, using a hypothetical influenza pandemic data from the 2019 Taiwan Social Change Survey. Participants were selected through a stratified, three-stage probability proportional-to-size sampling from across the nation, to fill in questionnaires that asked about their perception of the hypothetical pandemic, and intention to adopt health protective behaviors. RESULTS: A total of 1,990 participants (median age = 45·92 years, 49% were women) were included. Significant gender disparities (p < .001) were observed. The risk perception of pandemic (OR = 1·28, 95% CI [1·21 - 1·35], p < .001), older age (OR = 1·06, 95% CI [1·05 - 1·07], p < .001), female gender (OR = 1·18, 95% CI [1·09-1·27], p < .001), higher education (OR = 1·10, 95% CI [1·06 - 1·13], p < .001), and larger family size (OR = 1·09, 95% CI [1·06 - 1·15], p < .001) were positively associated with health protective behaviors. The risk perception of pandemic (OR = 1·25, 95% CI [1·15 - 1·36]), higher education (OR = 1·07, 95% CI [1·02 - 1·13], p < .05), being married (OR = 1·17, 95% CI [1·01-1·36, p < .05), and larger family size (OR = 1·33, 95% CI [1·25 - 1·42], p < .001), were positively associated with intention to receive a vaccine. However, female gender was negatively associated with intention to receive a vaccine (OR = 0·85, 95% CI [0·75 - 0·90], p < ·01) and to comply with contact-tracing (OR = 0·95, 95% CI [0·90 - 1·00], p < .05) compared to men. Living with children was also negatively associated with intention to receive vaccines (OR = 0·77, 95% CI [0·66 - 0·90], p < .001). CONCLUSION: This study unveils gender differences in risk perception, health protective behaviors, vaccine hesitancy, and compliance with contact-tracing using a hypothetical viral pandemic. Gender-specific health education raising awareness of health protective behaviors may be beneficial to prevent future pandemics.

Safety and Seroconversion of Immunotherapies against SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

Clinical trials evaluating the safety and antibody response of strategies to manipulate prophylactic and therapeutic immunity have been launched. We aim to evaluate strategies for augmentation of host immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We searched clinical trials registered at the National Institutes of Health by 25 May 2021 and conducted analyses on inoculated populations, involved immunological processes, source of injected components, and trial phases. We then searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for their corresponding reports published by 25 May 2021. A bivariate, random-effects meta-analysis was used to derive the pooled estimate of seroconversion and adverse events (AEs). A total of 929,359 participants were enrolled in 389 identified trials. The working mechanisms included heterologous immunity, active immunity, passive immunity, and immunotherapy, with 62.4% of the trials on vaccines. A total of 9072 healthy adults from 27 publications for 22 clinical trials on active immunity implementing vaccination were included for meta-analyses. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) of seroconversion were 13.94, 84.86, 106.03, and 451.04 (all p < 0.01) for vaccines based on protein, RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus, compared with that of respective placebo/control treatment or pre-vaccination sera. The pooled ORs for safety, as defined by the inverse of systemic adverse events (AEs) were 0.53 (95% CI = 0.27-1.05; p = 0.07), 0.35 (95% CI = 0.16-0.75; p = 0.007), 0.32 (95% CI = 0.19-0.55; p < 0.0001), and 1.00 (95% CI = 0.73-1.36; p = 0.98) for vaccines based on protein, RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus, compared with that of placebo/control treatment. A paradigm shift from all four immune-augmentative interventions to active immunity implementing vaccination was observed through clinical trials. The efficacy of immune responses to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 for these vaccines was promising, although systemic AEs were still evident for RNA-based and viral vector-based vaccines.