Human papillomavirus infection in couples with female low-grade intraepithelial cervical lesion

Prevalence of human papillomaviruses in the healthy oral mucosa of women with high-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesion and of their partners as compared to healthy controls

Oral human papillomavirus (HPV) carriage rates were investigated in relation to genital HPV carriage in women with HPV-associated cervical lesions and male partner of such women, including several couples, in comparison with healthy individuals. Buccal and lingual mucosa of 60 males and 149 females with healthy oral mucosa and without known genital lesion, genital and oral mucosa of further 40 females with cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and 34 male sexual partners of women with HSIL (including 20 couples) were sampled. HPV DNA was detected using MY/GP PCR. Genotype was determined by sequencing or restriction fragment length polymorphism. Virus copy numbers were determined by real-time PCR. Overall, oral HPV carriage rate was 5.7% (12/209) in healthy individuals; average copy number was 5.8 × 10(2) copies/1 μg DNA; male and female rates were comparable. Oral carriage in women with HSIL was significantly higher, 20.0% (8/40, P = 0.003); males with partners with HSIL showed a carriage rate of 17.6% (6/34), copy numbers were similar to the healthy controls. In contrast, genital carriage rate (52.9%, 18/34 vs. 82.5%, 33/40; P = 0.006) and average copy number were lower in males (5.0 × 10(5) vs. 7.8 × 10(5) copies/1 μg DNA; P = 0.01). Oral copy numbers in these groups and in healthy individuals were comparable. High-risk genotypes were dominant; couples usually had the same genotype in the genital sample. In conclusion, genital HPV carriage is a risk factor of oral carriage for the individual or for the sexual partner, but alone is not sufficient to produce an oral HPV infection in most cases.

Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision

In a recent issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics,Svoboda and Van Howe commented on the 2012 changein the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) policy on newborn male circumcision, in which the AAP stated that benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks. Svoboda and Van Howe disagree with the AAP conclusions. We show here that their arguments against male circumcision are based on a poor understanding of epidemiology,erroneous interpretation of the evidence, selective citation of the literature, statistical manipulation of data, and circular reasoning. In reality, the scientific evidence indicates that male circumcision, especially when performed in the newborn period, is an ethically and medically sound low-risk preventive health procedure conferring a lifetime of benefits to health and well-being.Policies in support of parent-approved elective newborn circumcision should be embraced by the medical,scientific and wider communities.

The Strong Protective Effect of Circumcision against Cancer of the Penis

Male circumcision protects against cancer of the penis, the invasive form of which is a devastating disease confined almost exclusively to uncircumcised men. Major etiological factors are phimosis, balanitis, and high-risk types of human papillomavirus (HPV), which are more prevalent in the glans penis and coronal sulcus covered by the foreskin, as well as on the penile shaft, of uncircumcised men. Circumcised men clear HPV infections more quickly. Phimosis (a constricted foreskin opening impeding the passage of urine) is confined to uncircumcised men, in whom balanitis (affecting 10%) is more common than in circumcised men. Each is strongly associated with risk of penile cancer. These findings have led to calls for promotion of male circumcision, especially in infancy, to help reduce the global burden of penile cancer. Even more relevant globally is protection from cervical cancer, which is 10-times more common, being much higher in women with uncircumcised male partners. Male circumcision also provides indirect protection against various other infections in women, along with direct protection for men from a number of genital tract infections, including HIV. Given that adverse consequences of medical male circumcision, especially when performed in infancy, are rare, this simple prophylactic procedure should be promoted.