Search

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a common sexually transmitted infection that is strongly associated with cervical cancer. A link to penile cancers has been suggested by case series. We sought to assess the strength of the association between HPV infection and penile cancer by meta-analysis.Methods: A literature search to identify population-based studies evaluating the risk of HPV infection with penile cancer was conducted via PubMed and Google Scholar databases through December 2020. Studies were included in the pooled analyses if they presented relative risk (RR) estimates comparing penile cancer cases with noncases by HPV exposure status. They were stratified by (1) type of HPV, (2) test used to determine past HPV infection, and (3) the penile cancer type. Pooled analyses were conducted for stratum with at least 2 independent studies using fixed-effects and random-effects models.Results: Fourteen articles representing 9 study populations fit the inclusion criteria and were included in the pooled analysis. Based on these studies, the pooled RRs are 2.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-5.0; n = 4 studies) for invasive penile cancer and seropositivity to HPV16 L1, 4.5 (95% CI, 1.3-15.5; n = 2) for seropositivity to HPV18, and 8.7 for anogenital warts (95% CI, 5.1-14.8; n = 5). For the 3 studies reporting invasive and in situ penile cancer, the risk was 7.6 for anogenital warts.Conclusions: The pooled RRs indicate up to a 4.5-fold increased risk between seropositivity for HPV infection and invasive penile cancer. This is much lower than associations seen between HPV and cervical cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we aimed to examine the association between gastrointestinal (GI) symptom presence during severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the prevalence of GI symptoms and the development of post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome (PI-IBS). We used data from a prospective cohort and logistic regression to examine the association between GI symptom status during confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and prevalence of persistent GI symptoms at ≥45 days. We also report the incidence of PI-IBS following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 1475 participants in this study, 33.8% (n = 499) had GI symptoms during acute infection. Cases with acute GI symptoms had an odds of persisting GI symptoms 4 times higher than cases without acute GI symptoms (odds ratio (OR) 4.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.45–7.53); symptoms lasted on average 8 months following infection. Of those with persisting GI symptoms, 67% sought care for their symptoms and incident PI-IBS occurred in 3.0% (n = 15) of participants. Those with acute GI symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are likely to have similar persistent symptoms 45 days and greater. These data indicate that attention to a potential increase in related healthcare needs is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical presentation, outcomes, and duration of COVID-19 has ranged dramatically. While some individuals recover quickly, others suffer from persistent symptoms, collectively known as long COVID, or post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC). Most PASC research has focused on hospitalized COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe disease. We used data from a diverse population-based cohort of Arizonans to estimate prevalence of PASC, defined as experiencing at least one symptom 30 days or longer, and prevalence of individual symptoms. There were 303 non-hospitalized individuals with a positive lab-confirmed COVID-19 test who were followed for a median of 61 days (range 30–250). COVID-19 positive participants were mostly female (70%), non-Hispanic white (68%), and on average 44 years old. Prevalence of PASC at 30 days post-infection was 68.7% (95% confidence interval: 63.4, 73.9). The most common symptoms were fatigue (37.5%), shortness-of-breath (37.5%), brain fog (30.8%), and stress/anxiety (30.8%). The median number of symptoms was 3 (range 1–20). Amongst 157 participants with longer follow-up (≥60 days), PASC prevalence was 77.1%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 have consistently been shown to reduce the risk of severe COVID-19 disease. However, uptake of boosters has stalled in the United States at less than 20% of the eligible population. The objective of this study was to assess the reasons for not having obtained a bivalent booster within an existing COVID-19 cohort. A total of 2196 adult participants from the Arizona CoVHORT, a population-based cohort in the United States established in May 2020, who had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, responded to surveys administered between February 13 and March 29, 2023 querying receipt of a bivalent booster and if not, the reasons for not receiving it. Descriptive statistics were employed, including frequencies of responses by participant characteristics, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between participant characteristics and selected themes for not having received the bivalent booster. The most commonly reported reason for not having been boosted was a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (39.5%), followed by concern about vaccine side effects (31.5%), believing that the booster would not provide additional protection over the vaccines already received (28.6%), and concern about booster safety (23.4%) or that it would not protect from SARS-CoV-2 infection (23.1%). For themes related to reasons for not having been boosted, those 60 years of age or older were less likely to select items related to knowledge (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.11–0.55) or logistical concerns (OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.03–0.30) about the vaccine; while those reporting Hispanic ethnicity were more likely to convey concerns about logistics than those reporting non-Hispanic ethnicity (OR: 2.15; 95% CI: 1.08–4.30). Finally, compared to college graduates, those with some college or technical school were significantly more likely to select items related to the risks and benefits of the bivalent vaccine not being clear as reasons for not having been boosted (OR: 2.41; 95% CI: 1.69–3.43). Improvement in booster uptake is necessary for optimal public health in the United States. The development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 occurred at an unprecedented speed, but vaccine uptake remains among the greatest current public health challenges as updated boosters continue to be developed and made available to the public. Interventions to improve vaccination rates require a variety of approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to investigate the differences in sleep patterns among individuals with and without laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 test results and self-reported measures recalling sleep habits prior to and during the pandemic were collected from May 2020 to March 2021 among 1,848 individuals in The Arizona CoVHORT Study. We used linear and logistic regression to model the association between test status, presentation of symptoms, and time since test result with sleep duration and trouble sleeping, respectively. Mixed models were used to investigate change in sleep duration prior to the pandemic compared to during the pandemic. Overall, 16.2% of the sample were SARS-CoV-2 positive, 64.3% were SARS-CoV-2 negative, and 19.5% were untested for SARS-CoV-2. Independent of SARS-CoV-2 infection status, all participants slept longer during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic (Δ SARS-CoV-2 positive: 77.7 min, 95% CI 67.9, 87.5; Δ SARS-CoV-2 negative: 13.4 min, 95% CI 8.4, 18.3). However, SARS-CoV-2 positive participants slept 60.9 min longer (95% CI 49.1, 72.8) than SARS-CoV-2 negative participants in multivariable-adjusted models and had greater odds of trouble sleeping three or more times per week since the start of the pandemic (OR: 1.34 95% CI 1.02, 1.77) This greater odds of trouble sleeping persisted for participants who reported sleep habits > 30 days after their positive SARS-CoV-2 (OR: 2.11 95% CI 1.47, 3.03). Sleep patterns among non-hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 were altered following infection, regardless of the presentation of symptoms and time since infection., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Donzella, Kohler, Crane, Jacobs, Ernst, Bell, Catalfamo, Begay, Pogreba-Brown and Farland.)

Objective: To elucidate the symptoms of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases as compared with laboratory-confirmed negative individuals and to the untested general population among all participants who reported symptoms within a large prospective cohort study., Setting and Design: This work was conducted within the framework of the Arizona CoVHORT, a longitudinal prospective cohort study conducted among Arizona residents., Participants: Eligible participants were any individual living in Arizona and were recruited from across Arizona via COVID-19 case investigations, participation in testing studies and a postcard mailing effort., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was a comparison of the type and frequency of symptoms between COVID-19-positive cases, tested but negative individuals and the general untested population who reported experiencing symptoms consistent with COVID-19., Results: Of the 1335 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, 180 (13.5%) reported having no symptoms. Of those that did report symptoms, the most commonly reported were fatigue (82.2%), headache (74.6%), aches, pains or sore muscles (66.3%), loss of taste or smell (62.8) and cough (61.9%). In adjusted logistic regression models, COVID-19-positive participants were more likely than negative participants to experience loss of taste and smell (OR 12.1; 95% CI 9.6 to 15.2), bone or nerve pain (OR 3.0; 95% CI 2.2 to 4.1), headache (OR 2.6; 95% CI 2.2 to 3.2), nausea (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.9 to 3.1) or diarrhoea (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.6). Fatigue (82.9) and headache (74.9) had the highest sensitivities among symptoms, while loss of taste or smell (87.2) and bone or nerve pain (92.9) had the high specificities among significant symptoms associated with COVID-19., Conclusion: When comparing confirmed COVID-19 cases with either confirmed negative or untested participants, the pattern of symptoms that discriminates SARS-CoV-2 infection from those arising from other potential circulating pathogens may differ from general reports of symptoms among cases alone., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This study is a prospective, population-based cohort of individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and those without past infection through multiple recruitment sources. The main study goal is to track health status over time, within the diverse populations of Arizona and to identify the long-term consequences of COVID-19 on health and well-being. A total of 2,881 study participants (16.2% with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) have been enrolled as of December 22, 2020, with a target enrollment of 10,000 participants and a planned follow-up of at least 2 years. This manuscript describes a scalable study design that utilizes a wide range of recruitment sources, leveraging electronic data collection to capture and link longitudinal participant data on the current and emerging issues associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The cohort is built within a collaborative infrastructure that includes new and established partnerships with multiple stakeholders, including the state's public universities, local health departments, tribes, and tribal organizations. Challenges remain for ensuring recruitment of diverse participants and participant retention, although the electronic data management system and timing of participant contact can help to mitigate these problems., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Catalfamo, Heslin, Shilen, Khan, Hunsaker, Austhof, Barraza, Cordova-Marks, Farland, Garcia-Filion, Hoskinson, Jehn, Kohler, Lutrick, Harris, Chen, Klimentidis, Bell, Ernst, Jacobs and Pogreba-Brown.)