Ensuring access to HPV vaccines through integrated services: a reproductive health perspective.

In 2006, a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was licensed, and another vaccine may be licensed soon. Little is known about the practical considerations involved in designing and implementing cervical cancer prevention programmes that include vaccination as a primary means of prevention. Although the vaccine may ultimately be indicated for both males and females, young girls, or girls and women aged 9-25 years, will be the initial candidates for the vaccine. This paper describes avenues for service delivery of HPV vaccines and critical information gaps that must be bridged in order to inform future sexual and reproductive health programming. It proposes the role that the sexual and reproductive health community, together with immunization and cancer control programmes, could have in supporting the introduction of HPV vaccines within the context of current health systems.

Screen-and-treat approaches for cervical cancer prevention in low-resource settings: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Non-cytology-based screen-and-treat approaches for cervical cancer prevention have been developed for low-resource settings, but few have directly addressed efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of 2 screen-and-treat approaches for cervical cancer prevention that were designed to be more resource-appropriate than conventional cytology-based screening programs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized clinical trial of 6555 nonpregnant women, aged 35 to 65 years, recruited through community outreach and conducted between June 2000 and December 2002 at ambulatory women's health clinics in Khayelitsha, South Africa. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were screened using human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA). Women were subsequently randomized to 1 of 3 groups: cryotherapy if she had a positive HPV DNA test result; cryotherapy if she had a positive VIA test result; or to delayed evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Biopsy-confirmed high-grade cervical cancer precursor lesions and cancer at 6 and 12 months in the HPV DNA and VIA groups compared with the delayed evaluation (control) group; complications after cryotherapy. RESULTS: The prevalence of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer (CIN 2+) was significantly lower in the 2 screen-and-treat groups at 6 months after randomization than in the delayed evaluation group. At 6 months, CIN 2+ was diagnosed in 0.80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40%-1.20%) of the women in the HPV DNA group and 2.23% (95% CI, 1.57%-2.89%) in the VIA group compared with 3.55% (95% CI, 2.71%-4.39%) in the delayed evaluation group (P<.001 and P = .02 for the HPV DNA and VIA groups, respectively). A subset of women underwent a second colposcopy 12 months after enrollment. At 12 months the cumulative detection of CIN 2+ among women in the HPV DNA group was 1.42% (95% CI, 0.88%-1.97%), 2.91% (95% CI, 2.12%-3.69%) in the VIA group, and 5.41% (95% CI, 4.32%-6.50%) in the delayed evaluation group. Although minor complaints, such as discharge and bleeding, were common after cryotherapy, major complications were rare. CONCLUSION: Both screen-and-treat approaches are safe and result in a lower prevalence of high-grade cervical cancer precursor lesions compared with delayed evaluation at both 6 and 12 months. Trial Registration http://clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00233727.

A prospective study of time and number of ejaculations to azoospermia after vasectomy by ligation and excision.

PURPOSE: We obtained detailed information on the time and number of ejaculations to azoospermia after vasectomy by ligation and excision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men seeking vasectomy at 3 public clinics in Mexico City were invited to participate in this prospective noncomparative study. Vasectomy was performed using the no-scalpel technique. The vas was occluded using 2 silk sutures and the segment of vas between the ligatures was excised. Men were followed biweekly up to 24 weeks after vasectomy or until azoospermia was confirmed. Semen was examined at each visit for sperm concentration and motility. The main outcome measure was azoospermia in uncentrifuged semen samples. RESULTS: The life table rate for time to azoospermia was 81.5/100 men (95% CI 76.2 to 86.9) by the end of the study. Cumulative Kaplan-Meier event probability attained a maximum of 79.5/100 men (95% CI 73.7 to 85.2) at 70 ejaculations. Only 60/100 and 27.9/100 men were azoospermic by 12 weeks and 20 ejaculations, respectively. These end points are the commonly recommended waiting periods when semen analysis is unavailable. Of the 217 men 36 (16.6%) did not achieve azoospermia by 24 weeks, of whom 25 (11.5% of all participants) were considered to have vasectomy failure. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that it is not possible to develop guidelines for clearance based only on the time or number of ejaculations when ligation and excision are performed. In addition, of the methods for vas occlusion during vasectomy ligation and excision may not provide the best success rates.