RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (VIA) to Pocket Colposcopy for the Triage of HPV+ women living with HIV in Kisumu, Kenya
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.11.05.24316753
DO 10.1101/2024.11.05.24316753
A1 Dotson, Mary E.
A1 Steinberg, Eliza
A1 Santos, Maria Olivia
A1 Ambaka, Jeniffer
A1 Huchko, Megan
A1 Ramanujam, Nimmi
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/05/2024.11.05.24316753.abstract
AB Objective The World Health Organization recommends a “screen, triage, treat” approach for cervical cancer screening for Women Living with HIV (WLWH) in resource-limited settings, with Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing preferred for screening. We assessed the use of the Pocket colposcope as an adjunct tool to Visual Assessment with Acetic Acid (VIA) for the triage of HPV+ WLWH.Methods We carried out a randomized clinical trial across six clinics in Kisumu, Kenya between November 2022 and April 2023 (NCT04998318). WLWH who screened positive with self-collected HPV were randomized to either the VIA or Pocket arm. Exam positivity was determined by presence or absence of aceto-white epithelium (AWE). Directed biopsies were performed on AWE; if negative, two random biopsies were taken. Pathology was used to determine diagnostic accuracy. Providers and participants took brief surveys after each exam.Findings The rate of a positive exams was 17.3% for VIA compared to 14.3% for the Pocket. The overall rate of CIN2/3 was 15.4%, with 12.2% in the VIA Arm and is 18.8% in the Pocket Arm. Pocket and VIA performed comparably on all sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value (NPV). For Pocket compared to VIA, Sensitivity was 26.3% vs 25.0%; specificity was 88.9% vs 84.0%; and NPV was 82.9% vs 87.1%. However, the positive predictive value (PPV) of the Pocket colposcope arm was almost a factor of two higher than that of the VIA arm (Pocket arm PPV was 375 is and that of the VIA arm was 20.6%). The Pocket Colposcope was acceptable to providers and patients for clinic-based triage of HPV positivity.Conclusion Provider assessment with the Pocket colposcope detected significantly more treatable disease, thereby reducing the need for overtreatment. This study indicates that the Pocket colposcope is a feasible, lower cost colposcopic device, which could facilitate biopsy-confirmation of disease, increase provider training, patient education and facilitate remote diagnosis.Competing Interest StatementDr. Nimmi Ramanujam is an advisor and Mary E Dotson is an employee of the Calla Health Foundation which have commercialized the Pocket Colposcope for distribution globally.Clinical TrialNCT04998318Funding StatementThis RCT was supported by USAID-Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) under award #7200AA19FA00001Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study protocols, consent forms, and provider and patient questionnaires were reviewed by the institutional review boards of both the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) and Duke University prior to study initiation.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data is available within Duke’s research data repository.