| Literature DB >> 32143643 |
Marianela Patzi-Churqui1,2, Katty Terrazas-Aranda3, Jan-Åke Liljeqvist4, Magnus Lindh4, Kristina Eriksson5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bolivia has the highest prevalence of cervical cancer in South America and the prevalence of viral sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among people in urban cities is increasing. Little is known about the prevalence of viral STIs in rural communities, which generally have limited access to health care. In order to study the prevalence of viral STIs in rural Bolivia, we recruited women from villages and towns in the Department of La Paz in Bolivia.Entities:
Keywords: Bolivia; HBV; HIV; HSV-2; High-risk HPV; La Paz; Prevalence; Rural communities; Sexually transmitted infections; Women
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32143643 PMCID: PMC7060520 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-020-4931-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Demographic characteristics of the participants according to residence
| Groups | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Villages | Small town | Large town | |||||||
| ( | ( | ( | ( | |||||||
| N | (%) | 95% CI | N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | ||
| Age (median = 34) | 0.95 | |||||||||
| < 26 | 98 | (25) | 21–29 | 17 | (22) | 19 | (26) | 62 | (25) | |
| 26–34 | 105 | (27) | 22–31 | 24 | (31) | 20 | (27) | 61 | (25) | |
| 35–45 | 100 | (25) | 21–30 | 19 | (25) | 18 | (25) | 63 | (26) | |
| > 45 | 91 | (23) | 19–28 | 17 | (22) | 16 | (22) | 58 | (24) | |
| Occupation | < 0.0001 | |||||||||
| Housewife | 203 | (51.5) | 47–56 | 63 | (82) | 41 | (56) | 99 | (40.5) | |
| Self employed2 | 138 | (35) | 30–40 | 5 | (6) | 26 | (36) | 107 | (44) | |
| Professional or student | 53 | (13.5) | 10–17 | 9 | (12) | 6 | (8) | 11 | (15.5) | |
| Number of children (median = 2) | < 0.0006 | |||||||||
| 0 | 41 | (10) | 8–14 | 9 | (12) | 6 | (8) | 26 | (11) | |
| 1–3 | 229 | (58) | 53–63 | 30 | (39) | 38 | (52) | 161 | (66) | |
| 4–10 | 124 | (32) | 27–32 | 38 | (49) | 29 | (40) | 57 | (23) | |
| Current family planning method | 0.59 | |||||||||
| None | 207 | (52.5) | 48–57 | 45 | (58) | 40 | (55) | 122 | (50) | |
| Hormonal contraception | 130 | (33) | 28–38 | 27 | (35) | 22 | (30) | 81 | (33) | |
| Others3 | 43 | (11) | 8–14 | 3 | (4) | 10 | (14) | 30 | (12) | |
| Condom | 14 | (3.5) | 2–6 | 2 | (3) | 1 | (1) | 11 | (5) | |
| Cytological inspection PAP | 0.2 | |||||||||
| Ever | 273 | (69) | 64–73 | 46 | (60) | 50 | (68) | 177 | (72) | |
| Never | 121 | (31) | 27–36 | 31 | (40) | 23 | (32) | 67 | (28) | |
1P value was calculated using χ2 test between residence groups
2Self-employed: Merchant, artisan, cook and farmer
3Others: Intra uterine devise (IUD), tubal ligation and calendar
Seroprevalence of HSV-2 by demographic characteristics of the total population
| HSV-2 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable group | |||||||||
| All women | 389 | 205 | (53) | 47.7–57.6 | |||||
| Age | |||||||||
| < 26 | 98 | 36 | (37) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||||
| 26–34 | 104 | 57 | (55) | 2.1 | |||||
| 35–45 | 98 | 64 | (65) | 3.2 | |||||
| > 45 | 89 | 48 | (54) | 2.0 | |||||
| Occupation | |||||||||
| Professional or student | 51 | 21 | (41) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| Self employed3 | 136 | 65 | (48) | 1.3 | 0.7–2.5 | 0.40 | 0.9 | 0.5–1.9 | 0.90 |
| Housewife | 202 | 119 | (59) | 2.0 | 1.6 | 0.8–3.1 | 0.10 | ||
| Number of children | |||||||||
| 0 | 41 | 11 | (27) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| 1–3 | 225 | 114 | (51) | 2.8 | 2.7 | ||||
| 4–10 | 123 | 80 | (65) | 5.0 | 4.6 | ||||
| Current family planning method | |||||||||
| Condom | 14 | 4 | (29) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| Hormonal contraception | 128 | 74 | (58) | 3.4 | 2.6 | 0.8–8.9 | 0.40 | ||
| Others4 | 41 | 25 | (61) | 3.9 | 2.5 | 0.6–8.9 | 0.10 | ||
| None | 206 | 102 | (49) | 2.4 | 0.7–8.1 | 0.14 | 1.7 | 0.5–5.9 | 0.20 |
| Residence | |||||||||
| Large size town | 239 | 112 | (47) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| Small size town | 73 | 41 | (56) | 1.4 | 0.8–2.4 | 0.16 | 1.5 | 0.8–2.5 | 0.15 |
| Villages | 77 | 52 | (67) | 2.4 | 2.4 | ||||
1P value was calculated between the subgroups or variables compared to the reference variable
2Odds ratio adjusted for age
3Self-employed: Merchant, artisan, cook and farmer
4Others: Intra uterine devise (IUD), tubal ligation and calendar
Abbreviations: OR: odds ratio, CI Confidence interval, Ref Reference
Seroprevalence of anti-HBVc and HBAg by demographic characteristics of the total population
| Anti-HBVc | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable group | |||||||||
| All women | 38 | (9.7) | 7.1–13 | ||||||
| HBAg | 6 | (15.8) | 7.1–30 | ||||||
| Age | |||||||||
| < 26 | 98 | 6 | (6) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||||
| 26–34 | 104 | 10 | (9.6) | 1.6 | 0.6–4.6 | 0.36 | |||
| 35–45 | 98 | 12 | (12) | 2.1 | 0.8–5.9 | 0.14 | |||
| > 45 | 89 | 10 | (11) | 1.9 | 0.7–5.6 | 0.21 | |||
| Occupation | |||||||||
| Professional or student | 51 | 3 | (4) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| Self employed3 | 136 | 17 | (12) | 3.5 | 0.8–16 | 0.10 | 3.0 | 0.6–14 | 0.17 |
| Housewife | 202 | 19 | (9.4) | 2.5 | 0.5–11 | 0.22 | 2.2 | 0.5–10 | 0.30 |
| Number of children | |||||||||
| 0 | 41 | 1 | (2) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| 1–3 | 225 | 22 | (10) | 4.3 | 0.6–33 | 0.16 | 4.0 | 0.5–31 | 0.19 |
| 4–10 | 123 | 15 | (12) | 5.5 | 0.7–43 | 0.10 | 4.5 | 0.5–40 | 0.17 |
| Current family planning method | |||||||||
| Condom | 14 | 1 | (7) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| Hormonal contraception | 128 | 13 | (10) | 1.5 | 0.2–12 | 0.72 | 1.1 | 0.1–9.6 | 0.72 |
| Others4 | 41 | 3 | (7) | 1.0 | 0.1–11 | 0.98 | 0.7 | 0.1–7.5 | 0.74 |
| None | 206 | 21 | (10) | 1.5 | 0.2–11 | 0.71 | 1.0 | 0.1–11 | 0.98 |
| Residence | |||||||||
| Large size town | 239 | 29 | (12) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| Small size town | 73 | 5 | (7) | 0.5 | 0.2–1.4 | 0.20 | 0.5 | 0.2–1.4 | 0.20 |
| Villages | 77 | 4 | (5) | 0.4 | 0.1–1.1 | 0.09 | 0.4 | 0.1–1.1 | 0.09 |
1P value was calculated between the subgroups or variables compared to the reference variable
2Odds ratio adjusted for age
3Self-employed: Merchant, artisan, cook and farmer
4Others: Intra uterine devise (IUD), tubal ligation and calendar
Abbreviations: OR Odds ratio, CI Confidence interval, Ref Reference
Prevalence of High risk HPV by demographic characteristics of the total population
| HR-HPV | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable group | Total | Positive | Crude | Adjusted | |||||
| All women | 376 | 101 | (27) | ||||||
| Age | |||||||||
| < 26 | 96 | 35 | (37) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||||
| 26–34 | 98 | 21 | (21) | 0.5 | |||||
| 35–45 | 96 | 23 | (24) | 0.5 | 0.3–1.0 | 0.06 | |||
| > 45 | 86 | 22 | (26) | 0.6 | 0.3–1.1 | 0.10 | |||
| Occupation | |||||||||
| Professional or students | 53 | 18 | (34) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||||
| Self employed3 | 134 | 35 | (26) | 0.7 | 0.3–1.4 | 0.28 | 0.8 | 0.4–1.7 | 0.56 |
| Housewife | 189 | 48 | (25) | 0.7 | 0.3–1.3 | 0.22 | 0.7 | 0.4–1.5 | 0.40 |
| Number of children | |||||||||
| 0 | 41 | 14 | (34) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||||
| 1–3 | 218 | 64 | (29) | 0.8 | 0.4–1.6 | 0.50 | 0.8 | 0.4–1.6 | 0.60 |
| 4–10 | 117 | 23 | (20) | 0.5 | 0.2–1.0 | 0.06 | 0.5 | 0.2–1.0 | 0.15 |
| Current family planning method | |||||||||
| Condom | 14 | 3 | (21) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||||
| Hormonal contraception | 126 | 29 | (23) | 1.1 | 0.3–4.2 | 0.89 | 1.4 | 0.3–5.4 | 0.64 |
| Others4 | 41 | 12 | (29) | 1.5 | 0.4–6.4 | 0.57 | 2.2 | 0.5–10 | 0.29 |
| None | 195 | 57 | (29) | 1.5 | 0.4–5.6 | 0.53 | 2.0 | 0.5–7.6 | 0.31 |
| Cytological inspection PAP | |||||||||
| Ever | 265 | 68 | (26) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||||
| Never | 111 | 33 | (30) | 1.2 | 0.7–2.0 | 0.40 | 1.2 | 0.7–2.0 | 0.50 |
| Residence | |||||||||
| Large size town | 239 | 70 | (29) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||||
| Small size town | 68 | 14 | (21) | 0.6 | 0.3–1.2 | 0.20 | 0.6 | 0.3–1.2 | 0.20 |
| Villages | 69 | 17 | (25) | 0.8 | 0.4–1.4 | 0.50 | 0.8 | 0.4–1.4 | 0.40 |
| Coinfection | |||||||||
| HSV-2 Negative | 179 | 45 | (25) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||||
| HSV-2 Positive | 192 | 55 | (29) | 1.2 | 0.7–1.9 | 0.40 | 1.2 | 0.8–2 | 0.30 |
| HBAg Negative | 363 | 94 | (50) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||||
| HBAg Positive | 8 | 4 | (26) | 2.7 | 0.7–11 | 0.10 | 2.7 | 0.7–11 | 0.20 |
1P value was calculated between the subgroups or variables compared to the reference variable
2Odds ratio adjusted for age
3Self-employed: Merchant, artisan, cook and farmer
4Others: Intra uterine devise (IUD), tubal ligation and calendar
Abbreviations: OR Odds ratio, CI Confidence interval, Ref reference
Fig. 1Prevalence of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) genotypes in cervical samples from 101 participants with detected HPV infection. Measurement of DNA by qPCR of cervical swabs samples eluted. a. Prevalence of the five most prevalent HPV positive types found around 376 participants. b. Distribution of HPV 16/18, HPV 31/39/56, and other high-risk (HR-HPV) found in 101 samples
Presence of single, multiple or no viral STIs in 371 participants
| Number of infections | Pathogens | No. | (%) | Total | (%) | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | No infections | 133 | (35.8) | 133 | 31.1–40.8 | |
| 1 | HPV | 43 | (11.6) | 178 | 42.9–53.0 | |
| HSV-2 | 134 | (36.1) | ||||
| HBsAg | 1 | (0.3) | ||||
| 2 | HSV-2 + HBsAg | 3 | (0.8) | 58 | 12.3–19.7 | |
| HPV+ HBsAg | 2 | (0.5) | ||||
| HSV-2 + HPV | 53 | (14.3) | ||||
| 3 | HSV-2 + HPV + HBsAg | 2 | (0.5) | 2 | 0.1–1.9 |