Estimation of the incidence of genital warts and the cost of illness in Germany: A cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a necessary cause of cervical cancer. HPV is also responsible for benign <it>condylomata acuminata</it>, also known as genital warts. We assessed the incidence of genital warts in Germany and collected information on their management to estimate the annual cost of disease.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a multi-centre observational (cross-sectional) study of genital warts in Germany. Data were collected from gynecologists, dermatologists, and urologists seeing patients with genital warts between February and April 2005. The number of patients with new and recurrent genital warts was used to estimate the incidence in Germany. We assessed resource use for patients with genital warts seen during a two-month period as well as retrospective resource use twelve months prior to the inclusion visit through a chart review. The mean costs of treatment of patients with genital warts from third-party payer and societal perspectives were estimated, and the total annual cost of genital warts was then calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For the incidence calculation 217 specialists provided information on 848 patients and 214 specialists provided resource use data for 617 patients to assess resource consumption. The incidence of new and recurrent cases of genital warts was 113.7 and 34.7 per 100 000, respectively, for women aged 14–65 years consulting gynecologists. The highest incidence was observed in women aged 14–25 years (171.0 per 100 000) for new cases and in women aged 26–45 years (53.1 per 100 000) for recurrent cases. The sample size for males was too small to allow a meaningful estimate of the incidence. The mean direct cost per patient with new genital warts was estimated at 378 euros (95% CI: 310.8–444.9); for recurrent genital warts at 603 euros (95% CI: 436.5–814.5), and for resistant genital warts at 1,142 euros (95% CI: 639.6–1752.3). The overall cost to third-party payers was estimated at 49.0 million euros, and the total societal cost at 54.1 million euros, corresponding to an average cost per patient of 550 euros and 607 euros, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The societal burden and costs of managing and treating genital warts in Germany are considerable. A vaccination programme using the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine could provide a substantial health benefit and reduce the costs associated with genital warts in Germany.</p

Scientific impact increases when researchers publish in open access and international collaboration: A bibliometric analysis on poverty-related disease papers.

BackgroundThe European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), like many other research funders, requires its grantees to make papers available via open access (OA). This article investigates the effect of publishing in OA journals and international collaboration within and between European and sub-Saharan African countries on citation impact and likelihood of falling into the top 1% and top 10% most cited papers in poverty-related disease (PRD) research.MethodsDisease-specific research publications were identified in the Web of Science™ and MEDLINE using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms. Data on the open accessibility of scientific literature were derived from 1science oaFindr. Publication data, including relative citation counts, were extracted for 2003-2015. Regression models were applied to quantify the relationship between relative citations and presence in the 1% and top 10% most cited papers versus OA and international collaboration.ResultsThe results show that since 2003 papers on PRDs have become increasingly available in OA. Among all PRD areas, malaria research is most frequently published in OA and in international collaboration. The adjusted regression analyses show that holding other factors constant, publishing research in OA and in international collaboration has a significant and meaningful citation advantage over non-OA or non-international collaborative research. Publishing papers as part of a European-wide or European- sub-Saharan African collaboration increases research impact. In contrast, such collaboration advantage is not observed for research output involving sub-Saharan Africa only which seems to decrease research impact.ConclusionsOur results indicate that there is a real, measurable citation advantage for publishing PRD research in OA and international collaboration. However, the international collaboration advantage seems to be region-specific with increased research impact for European-wide and European-sub-Saharan African collaborations but a decrease in research impact of collaborations confined to sub-Saharan African research institutions. Further research is required to further verify this finding and to understand the underlying factors related to this observed decrease in research impact. To target future research capacity building activities in sub-Saharan Africa it is important to assess whether the observed decreased impact reflects the scientific competencies and geographic distribution of individual researchers or institutional-, national- or funder-specific research requirements

Rural prioritization may increase the impact of COVID-19 vaccines in a representative COVAX AMC country setting due to ongoing internal migration: A modeling study.

How COVID-19 vaccine is distributed within low- and middle-income countries has received little attention outside of equity or logistical concerns but may ultimately affect campaign impact in terms of infections, severe cases, or deaths averted. In this study we examined whether subnational (urban-rural) prioritization may affect the cumulative two-year impact on disease transmission and burden of a vaccination campaign using an agent-based model of COVID-19 in a representative COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) Advanced Market Commitment (AMC) setting. We simulated a range of vaccination strategies that differed by urban-rural prioritization, age group prioritization, timing of introduction, and final coverage level. Urban prioritization averted more infections in only a narrow set of scenarios, when internal migration rates were low and vaccination was started by day 30 of an outbreak. Rural prioritization was the optimal strategy for all other scenarios, e.g., with higher internal migration rates or later start dates, due to the presence of a large immunological naive rural population. Among other factors, timing of the vaccination campaign was important to determining maximum impact, and delays as short as 30 days prevented larger campaigns from having the same impact as smaller campaigns that began earlier. The optimal age group for prioritization depended on choice of metric, as prioritizing older adults consistently averted more deaths across all of the scenarios. While guidelines exist for these latter factors, urban-rural allocation is an orthogonal factor that we predict to affect impact and warrants consideration as countries plan the scale-up of their vaccination campaigns

Study Comparing Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Real-Time Multiplex PCR and Hybrid Capture II INNO-LiPA v2 HPV Genotyping PCR Assays ▿

Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA genotyping is an essential test to establish efficacy in HPV vaccine clinical trials and HPV prevalence in natural history studies. A number of HPV DNA genotyping methods have been cited in the literature, but the comparability of the outcomes from the different methods has not been well characterized. Clinically, cytology is used to establish possible HPV infection. We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of HPV multiplex PCR assays compared to those of the testing scheme of the Hybrid Capture II (HCII) assay followed by an HPV PCR/line hybridization assay (HCII-LiPA v2). SurePath residual samples were split into two aliquots. One aliquot was subjected to HCII testing followed by DNA extraction and LiPA v2 genotyping. The second aliquot was shipped to a second laboratory, where DNA was extracted and HPV multiplex PCR testing was performed. Comparisons were evaluated for 15 HPV types common in both assays. A slightly higher proportion of samples tested positive by the HPV multiplex PCR than by the HCII-LiPA v2 assay. The sensitivities of the multiplex PCR assay relative to those of the HCII-LiPA v2 assay for HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, for example, were 0.806, 0.646, 0.920, and 0.860, respectively; the specificities were 0.986, 0.998, 0.960, and 0.986, respectively. The overall comparability of detection of the 15 HPV types was quite high. Analyses of DNA genotype testing compared to cytology results demonstrated a significant discordance between cytology-negative (normal) and HPV DNA-positive results. This demonstrates the challenges of cytological diagnosis and the possibility that a significant number of HPV-infected cells may appear cytologically normal

Bibliometric Assessment of European and Sub-Saharan African Research Output on Poverty-Related and Neglected Infectious Diseases from 2003 to 2011.

The European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) is a partnership of European and sub-Saharan African countries that aims to accelerate the development of medical interventions against poverty-related diseases (PRDs). A bibliometric analysis was conducted to 1) measure research output from European and African researchers on PRDs, 2) describe collaboration patterns, and 3) assess the citation impact of clinical research funded by EDCTP.Disease-specific research publications were identified in Thomson Reuters Web of Science using search terms in titles, abstracts and keywords. Publication data, including citation counts, were extracted for 2003-2011. Analyses including output, share of global papers, normalised citation impact (NCI), and geographical distribution are presented. Data are presented as five-year moving averages. European EDCTP member countries accounted for ~33% of global research output in PRDs and sub-Saharan African countries for ~10% (2007-2011). Both regions contributed more to the global research output in malaria (43.4% and 22.2%, respectively). The overall number of PRD papers from sub-Saharan Africa increased markedly (>47%) since 2003, particularly for HIV/AIDS (102%) and tuberculosis (TB) (81%), and principally involving Southern and East Africa. For 2007-2011, European and sub-Saharan African research collaboration on PRDs was highly cited compared with the world average (NCI in brackets): HIV/AIDS 1.62 (NCI: 1.16), TB 2.11 (NCI: 1.06), malaria 1.81 (NCI: 1.22), and neglected infectious diseases 1.34 (NCI: 0.97). The NCI of EDCTP-funded papers for 2003-2011 was exceptionally high for HIV/AIDS (3.24), TB (4.08) and HIV/TB co-infection (5.10) compared with global research benchmarks (1.14, 1.05 and 1.35, respectively).The volume and citation impact of papers from sub-Saharan Africa has increased since 2003, as has collaborative research between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. >90% of publications from EDCTP-funded research were published in high-impact journals and are highly cited. These findings corroborate the benefit of collaborative research on PRDs

Trends in neglected infectious disease (NID) research output for 2003–2011.

<p>Research output (number of publications) in NIDs for EDCTP member countries (right-hand red y-axis) and European collaboration with sub-Saharan Africa (left-hand black y-axis) (A) and for EDCTP Sub-Saharan Partner Countries (right-hand red y-axis) and the four regions in sub-Saharan Africa (left-hand black y-axis) (B). World share in NID publications for EDCTP member countries (right-hand red y-axis) and European collaboration with sub-Saharan Africa (left-hand black y-axis) (C) and for EDCTP Sub-Saharan Partner Countries (right-hand red y-axis) and the four regions in sub-Saharan Africa (left-hand black y-axis) (D). Citation impact for NID publications for EDCTP member countries and European collaboration with sub-Saharan Africa (E) and for EDCTP Sub-Saharan Partner Countries and the four regions in sub-Saharan Africa (F); the world average normalised citation impact for NID is shown as a solid black line in (E) and (F) for comparison.</p