High-risk human papillomavirus detection in self-collected vaginal samples compared with healthcare worker collected cervical samples among women attending gynecology clinics at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria, South Africa

Clinical Performance of Self-collected Specimen HPV-DNA vs Clinician- collected Specimen HPV-mRNA to Detect High-risk HPV and High-grade Cervical Lesions and Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Self- collected specimens to detect high-risk (hr) HPV and high-grade cervical lesions (CIN2+) has been introduced aiming to increase cervical cancer screening coverage. The performance of self- collected specimen  compared to clinician collected specimen is one major concern. This study aimed to compare self-sampling HPV-DNA and clinician-sampling HPV-mRNA to detect hr-HPV and high-grade cervical lesions.

METHODS

Women with abnormal cervical cytology and/ or positive hr-HPV who attended the colposcopy clinics in 10 tertiary hospitals in Bangkok were enrolled. Self-collected specimens were evaluated for  HPV DNA using Cobas® 4800 HPV test prior to the clinician-collected specimens which were tested for HPV mRNA with APTIMA® HPV Assay. Subsequent colposcopy with biopsy was performed. The detection rates of hr-HPV from both HPV tests and their performance to detect high-grade lesions pathology were compared.

RESULTS

Data from 497 women's specimens were analyzed. Both samplings had 86.8% concordance rate in detecting hr-HPV (Kappa 0.670; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.599-0.746, P value < 0.001). The sensitivity (95% CI) of self-collected specimen HPV DNA and clinician- collected specimen HPV-mRNA to detect high-grade lesions were 91.8% (85.4%-96.0%) and 90.2% (83.6%-94.9%) respectively. The corresponding negative predictive values (95% CI) were 91.9% (85.6%-96.0%) and 91.7% (86.0%-95.7%) respectively.

CONCLUSION

HPV DNA testing from self-collected specimen to detect HR-HPV demonstrates high concordance with HPV mRNA testing from clinician-collected specimen. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of both tests to detect high-grade lesions are comparable.

Menstrual Tampons Are Reliable and Acceptable Tools to Self-Collect Vaginal Microbiome Samples

Many women report embarrassment as the cause for their avoidance of routine gynaecological screening appointments. Methods of self-collection of bio samples would perhaps encourage women to participate in routine screening programs. The vaginal microbiome plays a key role in women's health and reproductive function. Microbial disturbances can result in the loss of lactobacillus dominance, also known as dysbiosis, associated with an increased risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), pregnancy complications and infertility. Our primary aim was to determine if vaginal microbiome screening results are comparable between two methods for self-collected sample acquisition: tampons and lower vaginal swabs (LVSs). Secondary aims included the assessment of the effect of pre-analytic storage on the data (to streamline processing), the prevalence of dysbiosis and the acceptability of the tampons to the participants. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in the microbiome data, from tampons versus LVSs or fresh versus frozen samples. The prevalence of dysbiosis in this population of healthy volunteers was 42.9%. The questionnaire data revealed that 52.4% of volunteers use tampons every period, and the majority of volunteers rated the tampons as 5 on a 1-5 Likert scale regarding their perceived comfort using tampons. All (100%) of volunteers were happy to provide a tampon as a sample for testing. The findings from this study show that tampons and LVSs were comparable when analysing the vaginal microbiome, with potential superiority of the tampon with regard to patient acceptability. Self-collection of vaginal secretions for gynaecological screening using tampons warrants further research as this could change the screening landscape, ensuring wider participation and increasing efficacy.

Performance Analysis of Self-Collected Nasal and Oral Swabs for Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the third highly pathogenic human coronavirus and is rapidly transmitted by infected individuals regardless of their symptoms. During the COVID-19 pandemic, owing to the dearth of skilled healthcare workers (HCWs) to collect samples for early diagnosis, self-collection emerged as a viable alternative. To evaluate the reliability of self-collection, we compared the virus detection rate using 3990 self-collected swabs and HCW-collected swabs, procured from the same individuals and collected immediately after the self-collection. The results of multiplex reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction revealed that the viral load in the HCW-collected swabs was marginally (18.4–28.8 times) higher than that in self-collected swabs. Self-collection showed no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity from HCW-collection (κ = 0.87, McNemar’s test; p = 0.19), indicating a comparable performance. These findings suggest that self-collected swabs are acceptable substitutes for HCW-collected swabs, and that their use improved the specimen screening efficiency and reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.