Incidence of anogenital warts in Germany: a population-based cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Human papilloma virus (HPV) types 6 and 11 account for 90 percent of anogenital warts (AGW). Assessment of a potential reduction of the incidence of AGW following introduction of HPV vaccines requires population-based incidence rates. The aim of this study was to estimate incidence rates of AGW in Germany, stratified by age, sex, and region. Additionally, the medical practitioner (gynaecologist, dermatologist, urologist etc.) who made the initial diagnosis of AGW was assessed.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Retrospective cohort study in a population aged 10 to 79 years in a population-based healthcare insurance database. The database included more than 14 million insurance members from all over Germany during the years 2004-2006. A case of AGW was considered incident if a disease-free period of twelve months preceded the diagnosis. To assess regional variation, analyses were performed by federal state.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The estimated incidence rate was 169.5/100,000 person-years for the German population aged 10 to 79 years. Most cases occurred in the 15 to 40 years age group. The incidence rate was higher and showed a peak at younger ages in females than in males. The highest incidence rates for both sexes were observed in the city-states Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. In females, initial diagnosis of AGW was most frequently made by a gynaecologist (71.7%), whereas in males, AGW were most frequently diagnosed by a dermatologist (44.8%) or urologist (25.1%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Incidence of AGW in Germany is comparable with findings for other countries. As expected, most cases occurred in the younger age groups. The frequency of diagnoses of AGW differs between sexes and women and men receive treatment by doctors of different specialties.</p

Recent breast cancer incidence trends according to hormone therapy use: the California Teachers Study cohort

Abstract Introduction Recent, international declines in breast cancer incidence are unprecedented, and the causes remain controversial. Few data sources can address breast cancer incidence trends according to pertinent characteristics like hormone therapy use history. Methods We used the prospective California Teachers Study to evaluate changes in self-reported use of menopausal hormone therapy (HT) between 1995 to 1996 and 2005 to 2006 and age-adjusted breast cancer incidence among 74,647 participants aged 50 years or older. Breast cancer occurrence was determined by linkage with the California Cancer Registry. Results During 517,286 woman years of follow up, 565 in situ and 2,668 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed. In situ breast cancer incidence rates in this population did not change significantly from 2000 to 2002 to 2003 to 2005, whereas rates of invasive breast cancer declined significantly by 26.0% from 528.0 (95% confidence intervals (CI) = 491.1, 564.9) per 100,000 women in 2000 to 2002 to 390.6 (95% CI = 355.6, 425.7) in 2003 to 2005. The decline in invasive breast cancer incidence rates was restricted to estrogen receptor-positive tumors. In 1996 to 1999 and 2000 to 2002 invasive breast cancer incidence was higher for women who reported current HT use especially estrogen-progestin (EP) use at baseline than for never or past users; but by 2003 to 2005 rates were comparable between these groups. For women who were taking EP in 2001 to 2002,75% of whom had stopped use by 2005 to 2006, incidence had declined 30.6% by 2003 to 2005 (P = 0.001); whereas incidence did not change significantly for those who never took HT (P = 0.33). Conclusions Few data resources can examine prospectively individual HT use and breast cancer diagnosis. Stable in situ breast cancer rates imply consistent levels of screening and suggest recent declines in invasive breast cancer to be explained predominantly by changes in HT use

A six-year descriptive analysis of hospitalisations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions among people born in refugee-source countries

Background: Hospitalisation for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSHs) has become a recognised tool to measure access to primary care. Timely and effective outpatient care is highly relevant to refugee populations given the past exposure to torture and trauma, and poor access to adequate health care in their countries of origin and during flight. Little is known about ACSHs among resettled refugee populations. With the aim of examining the hypothesis that people from refugee backgrounds have higher ACSHs than people born in the country of hospitalisation, this study analysed a six-year state-wide hospital discharge dataset to estimate ACSH rates for residents born in refugee-source countries and compared them with the Australia-born population. Methods: Hospital discharge data between 1 July 1998 and 30 June 2004 from the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset were used to assess ACSH rates among residents born in eight refugee-source countries, and compare them with the Australia-born average. Rate ratios and 95% confidence levels were used to illustrate these comparisons. Four categories of ambulatory care sensitive conditions were measured: total, acute, chronic and vaccine-preventable. Country of birth was used as a proxy indicator of refugee status. Results: When compared with the Australia-born population, hospitalisations for total and acute ambulatory care sensitive conditions were lower among refugee-born persons over the six-year period. Chronic and vaccine-preventable ACSHs were largely similar between the two population groups. Conclusion: Contrary to our hypothesis, preventable hospitalisation rates among people born in refugee-source countries were no higher than Australia-born population averages. More research is needed to elucidate whether low rates of preventable hospitalisation indicate better health status, appropriate health habits, timely and effective care-seeking behaviour and outpatient care, or overall low levels of health care-seeking due to other more pressing needs during the initial period of resettlement. It is important to unpack dimensions of health status and health care access in refugee populations through ad-hoc surveys as the refugee population is not a homogenous group despite sharing a common experience of forced displacement and violence-related trauma

Recent breast cancer trends among Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and African-American women in the US: changes by tumor subtype

Abstract available at publisher's website

Differences in prevalence of pre-existing morbility between injured and non-injured populations

Objectives To identify and examine differences in pre-existing morbidity between injured and non-injured population-based cohorts. Methods Administrative health data from Manitoba, Canada, were used to select a population-based cohort of injured people and a sample of non-injured people matched on age, gender, aboriginal status and geographical location of residence at the date of injury. All individuals aged 18-64 years who had been hospitalized between 1988 and 1991 for injury (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code 800-995) (n = 21032), were identified from the Manitoba discharge database. The matched non-injured comparison group comprised individuals randomly selected 1: 1 from the Manitoba population registry. Morbidity data for the 12 months prior to the date of the injury were obtained by linking the two cohorts with all hospital discharge records and physician claims. Results Compared to the non-injured group, injured people had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, 1.9 times higher rates of hospital admissions and 1.7 times higher rates of physician claims in the year prior to the injury. Injured people had a rate of admissions to hospital for a mental health disorder 9.3 times higher, and physician claims for a mental health disorder 3.5 times higher, than that of non-injured people. These differences were all statistically significant (P < 0.001). Conclusion Injured people were shown to differ from the general non-injured population in terms of pre-existing morbidity. Existing population estimates of the attributable burden of injury that are obtained by extrapolating from observed outcomes in samples of injured cases may overestimate the magnitude of the problem