Background

The purpose of this study was to examine the rate of and risks for cervical human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) redetection in women with documented or suspected HPV16 infection.

Methods

A convenience sample of women aged 13-21 years were seen at 4-month intervals for HPV DNA testing and cytology. Serum samples were obtained at baseline and annually.

Results

A total of 1543 women entered the study. Of the 295 women with detection of HPV16 DNA and subsequent clearance, 18.1% had HPV16 redetected by 8.5 years (88% cleared this second detection by 3 years). Of the 247 women who had antibodies to HPV16 and were HPV16 DNA negative at baseline, 15.3% had HPV16 redetected by year 5. Risks for redetection included douching, current use of medroxyprogesterone, reporting >1 sex partner or having a new sex partner, and having a sexually transmitted infection. Development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3 was rare in women with redetection, except for those with prevalent HPV16 infection.

Conclusions

Reappearance of HPV16 DNA was observed in 18% of women. Most are associated with sexual exposure and appear benign. Interpretation of the studies is more complex in women with prevalent infections as it appears that this small subset reflects women with persistence already present at entry.

Background

The purpose of this study was to examine the rate of and risks for cervical human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) redetection in women with documented or suspected HPV16 infection.

Methods

A convenience sample of women aged 13-21 years were seen at 4-month intervals for HPV DNA testing and cytology. Serum samples were obtained at baseline and annually.

Results

A total of 1543 women entered the study. Of the 295 women with detection of HPV16 DNA and subsequent clearance, 18.1% had HPV16 redetected by 8.5 years (88% cleared this second detection by 3 years). Of the 247 women who had antibodies to HPV16 and were HPV16 DNA negative at baseline, 15.3% had HPV16 redetected by year 5. Risks for redetection included douching, current use of medroxyprogesterone, reporting >1 sex partner or having a new sex partner, and having a sexually transmitted infection. Development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3 was rare in women with redetection, except for those with prevalent HPV16 infection.

Conclusions

Reappearance of HPV16 DNA was observed in 18% of women. Most are associated with sexual exposure and appear benign. Interpretation of the studies is more complex in women with prevalent infections as it appears that this small subset reflects women with persistence already present at entry.

In the United States (US), biosafety and biosecurity oversight of research on viruses is being reappraised. Safety in virology research is paramount and oversight frameworks should be reviewed periodically. Changes should be made with care, however, to avoid impeding science that is essential for rapidly reducing and responding to pandemic threats as well as addressing more common challenges caused by infectious diseases. Decades of research uniquely positioned the US to be able to respond to the COVID-19 crisis with astounding speed, delivering life-saving vaccines within a year of identifying the virus. We should embolden and empower this strength, which is a vital part of protecting the health, economy, and security of US citizens. Herein, we offer our perspectives on priorities for revised rules governing virology research in the US.

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns - conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we - a broad group of working virologists - seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology.

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns - conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we - a broad group of working virologists - seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology.

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns - conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we - a broad group of working virologists - seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology.