Welcome to the forum.
Your question is the first I heard of the new study showing a statistical link between HPV infection and heart disease in women. Thanks for the heads up about it. Although I haven't had time to come fully up to speed, and have not seen the study itself, only the news reports, here are some initial thoughts.
First, this is an association only, without proven causality; it will take a lot more research to know how important this link is and what if any prevention measures are warranted. It is a reasonable possibility that some unknown factor is associated and causes both increased heart disease and persistent HPV -- i.e. that preventing HPV would have no effect on heart disease risk.
Also, the association is (so far) only in women; at this point it isn't possible to know the significance for men. The study measured only current HPV infection, not past infection. That makes it possible that only persistent, ongoing infections carry any risk for heart disease; and since most HPV infections are transient, most people with HPV may have no risk. As best I can tell, the study did not measure actual clinical manifestations of HPV, only positive tests for HPV DNA on vaginal swabs. Whether people with overt warts, for example, or abnormal pap smears are at increased risk apparently isn't known. I have see no reports of confounding factors -- for example, in response to part of your question, whether the association is stronger or weaker in persons who have a strong family history of heart disease. Finally, even if the risk is real and the higher rate of heart disease is due directly to HPV, it could be that control of other standard risk factors -- cholesterol, weight, diet, smoking, exercise, etc -- would still prevent most or all cases of HPV-related heart problems.
As for your own past infection, I don't know whether to classify it as "persistent" or not. There is no standard definition. If you were tested for HPV at this time, I would expect the result to be negative. On the other hand, your infection apparently persisted for 3 years, which is longer than average -- but still not the same as more prolonged persistence.
So my advice to you -- and others who may be concerned about this research -- is to keep your ears open for future research; to not panic about these particular study results; and to do all the common sense things to keep heart disease risk to a minimum (no smoking, diet, exercise, etc).
I hope this helps. Best wishes-- HHH, MD
Thanks. That was helpful. Quick follow up if you don't mind. Concerning the link you mentioned between persistant hpv and cvd, does the same apply to cancers, even though i have the low risk kind? And can you you explain what they mean when they say 2.3 times more likely? Ex. If most have a 30% chance of cvd, does it mean they now have ~61%?
To clarify, if a wart is removed, doesn't come back, but a new one appears, say 5 years later, does that mean the hpv "persisted" for 5 years, assuming monogamy, or is it considered two separate incidences (or is the answer even known)?
Thanks again for the definitions!
Having not seen the study results per se, only media reports, I can only speculate about your question about doubling risk. If could be, for example, that the doubling applies only to "otherwise unexplained" CVD -- and since 90% of cases are explained, a proportionate 5% increase might bean an absolute rise different than 30% to 60%.
As I said, there are no formal definitions of "persistent" HPV. At a biological level, all infections may persist for life, even though most cannot be detected with currently available technologies.