Table 3.
The weak association between the incident detection of HPV16 and host immune status relative to that for other oncogenic HPV types.
| HPV Types | Ratio of HRs (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| HPV16 (reference) | 1.00 |
| HPV 18 | 1.12 (0.37–3.39) |
| HPV 31 | 2.02 (0.68–6.03) |
| HPV 33 | 5.28 (1.53–18.2) |
| HPV 35 | 1.71 (0.43–6.72) |
| HPV 39 | 3.65 (0.84–15.9) |
| HPV 45 | 2.05 (0.63–6.70) |
| HPV 51 | 2.15 (0.72–6.41) |
| HPV 52 | 5.54 (1.81–17.0) |
| HPV 56 | 0.97 (0.32–2.93) |
| HPV 58 | 2.42 (0.82–7.11) |
| HPV 59 | 3.69 (1.12–12.1) |
| HPV 66 | 6.29 (2.07–19.1) |
The ratio of hazard ratios (HR) was estimated using a WLW model (model (1.9)) examining the associations of host immune status with the incident detection of HPV by type. The adjustment variables included all those shown in Figure 2. For convenience, the table shows only shows the contrast between HIV-positive women with CD4+ count <200 cells/mm3 and HIV viral load >100,000 copies/mL versus HIV-negative women. Although most of the oncogenic types did not on an individual basis have a significantly different HR than that for HPV16, all other oncogenic types when assessed as a group (excluding HPV 18 and 56) did have a significantly higher HR than HPV16 (P-value=0.008). The findings were also significant if we included HPV 18 and 56 in the analysis.