American journal of reproductive immunology (New York, N.Y. : 1989) · 2017
Comparison of sampling methods to measure HIV RNA viral load in female genital tract secretions.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jaumdally Shameem Z, Jones Heidi E, Hoover Donald R, Gamieldien Hoyam, Kriek Jean-Mari, Langwenya Nontokozo, Myer Landon, Passmore Jo-Ann S, Todd Catherine S
Аннотация
PROBLEM: How does menstrual cup (MC) compare to other genital sampling methods for HIV RNA recovery?
METHOD OF STUDY: We compared HIV RNA levels between MC, endocervical swab (ECS), and ECS-enriched cervicovaginal lavage (eCVL) specimens in 51 HIV-positive, antiretroviral therapy-naive women at enrollment, 3 and 6 months, with order rotated by visit. Paired comparisons were analyzed with McNemar's exact tests, signed-rank tests, and an extension of Somer's D for pooled analyses across visits.
RESULTS: MC specimens had the highest proportion of quantifiable HIV VL at enrollment and month 3, but more MC specimens (n=12.8%) were insufficient for testing, compared with ECS (2%, P=0.006) and eCVL (0%, P<0.001). Among sufficient specimens, median VL was significantly higher for MC (2.62 log10 copies/mL) compared to ECS (1.30 log10 copies/mL, P<0.001) and eCVL (1.60 log10 copies/mL, P<0.001) across visits.
CONCLUSION: MC may be more sensitive than eCVL and CVS, provided insufficient specimens are reduced.
METHOD OF STUDY: We compared HIV RNA levels between MC, endocervical swab (ECS), and ECS-enriched cervicovaginal lavage (eCVL) specimens in 51 HIV-positive, antiretroviral therapy-naive women at enrollment, 3 and 6 months, with order rotated by visit. Paired comparisons were analyzed with McNemar's exact tests, signed-rank tests, and an extension of Somer's D for pooled analyses across visits.
RESULTS: MC specimens had the highest proportion of quantifiable HIV VL at enrollment and month 3, but more MC specimens (n=12.8%) were insufficient for testing, compared with ECS (2%, P=0.006) and eCVL (0%, P<0.001). Among sufficient specimens, median VL was significantly higher for MC (2.62 log10 copies/mL) compared to ECS (1.30 log10 copies/mL, P<0.001) and eCVL (1.60 log10 copies/mL, P<0.001) across visits.
CONCLUSION: MC may be more sensitive than eCVL and CVS, provided insufficient specimens are reduced.