Prevalence and Risk of Penile Human Papillomavirus Infection: Evidence From The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013-2014.

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is not well understood. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of penile HPV infection in the United States. METHODS: We analyzed a nationally representative sample of civilian noninstitutionalized US men from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2014. Penile swab samples were collected from men aged 18-59 years. For detection of HPV types, a Roche Linear Array test was performed. We used NHANES sampling weights to estimate the population prevalence of penile HPV infection. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of any HPV infection was 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41.3%-49.3%). The prevalence of any high-risk HPV types and low-risk HPV types (mutually exclusive of high-risk HPV) was 30.5% (95% CI, 28.0%-33.0%) and 14.8% (95% CI, 12.7%-17.2%), respectively. Overall HPV prevalence increased with increasing age: the prevalence was lowest among 18- to 24-year-old men (33.8%) and highest among 55- to 59-year-old men (53.4%). HPV types 16 and 18 were detected in 4.3% (95% CI, 3.2%-5.7%) and 1.7% (95% CI, 1.1%-2.6%) of men, respectively. The prevalence of any HPV infection was almost 80% among men who reported having ≥16 lifetime sexual partners and using condoms intermittently. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that penile HPV is common among men in the United States. Almost one-third of all men are infected with high-risk HPV. Prevalence of penile HPV infection increases with increasing age.

Achieving Adherence After First-Line Antihypertensive Treatment: Should Fixed-Dose Combinations Receive Priority?

Data on the long-term outcomes of the use of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) or free-pill combinations (FPCs), titration of doses, and switching are currently unavailable for identifying a preferred strategy for adherence. In the lack of these evidences, adherence can be a useful guiding criteria. The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study using the BlueCross BlueShield of Texas (2008-2012) database to compare adherence among 5998 patients who received treatment modifications (TMs). Results of the propensity score-adjusted model indicate that FDC and uptitration strategies have higher odds of adherence compared with the switch strategy (P<.05). Among patients with a history of poor adherence, the odds of adherence were up to 26% higher for the FDC strategy compared with alternative strategies (P<.05). Factors including age, number of comedications, first-line drug class, and health services utilization are associated with adherence. In conclusion, FDCs should be prioritized for TM, particularly if the patient has a history of poor adherence.