月经杯(MC)与其他生殖器采样方法相比如何恢复HIVRNA?
我们比较了MC之间的HIVRNA水平,宫颈拭子(ECS),和富含ECS的宫颈阴道灌洗(eCVL)标本在51个HIV阳性,接受抗逆转录病毒治疗的女性,3和6个月,订单按访问轮换。配对比较用McNemar精确检验进行分析,signed-ranktests,以及SomerD的扩展,用于跨访问的汇总分析。
在入组和第3个月时,MC标本的可量化HIVVL比例最高,但更多的MC标本(n=12.8%)不足以进行检测,与ECS(2%,P=0.006)和eCVL(0%,P<0.001)。在足够的标本中,MC的VL中位数(2.62log10拷贝/mL)明显高于ECS(1.30log10拷贝/mL,P<0.001)和eCVL(1.60log10拷贝/mL,P<0.001)。
MC可能比eCVL和CVS更敏感,如果样本不足,则减少。
How does menstrual cup (MC) compare to other genital sampling methods for HIV RNA recovery?
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.
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.
MC may be more sensitive than eCVL and CVS, provided insufficient specimens are reduced.