We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Comparison of sampling methods to measure HIV RNA viral load in female genital tract secretions.
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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app