ArticlePloS one2014
Development of a composite measure of product adherence, protocol compliance, and semen exposure using DNA and protein biomarkers for topical HIV prevention studies.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Development and clinical assessment of new objective adherence markers for four microbicide delivery systems used in HIV prevention studies.Clinical and translational medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoor and inconsistent use of study products has hindered clinical HIV prevention studies. It is important to be able to monitor product adherence and protocol compliance in order to determine microbicide efficacy and safety more accurately. Current methods for monitoring adherence are subjective, non-specific, or invasive. Herein, we present a composite, objective measure of product adherence and protocol compliance to assess vaginal insertion, semen exposure and drug expulsion utilizing DNA, protein, and drug isolated directly from returned, vaginally used gel applicators.
methodsDNA, vaginal cells, and residual tenofovir were isolated from vaginally inserted applicators. Vaginal and semen biomarkers were amplified using a multiplex PCR to determine vaginal insertion. Vaginal cells were fixed followed by cytokeratin 4 immunocytochemistry to confirm DNA assessment of vaginal insertion. Tenofovir was extracted and quantitated through LC-MS/MS.
resultsDNA isolated from vaginally inserted applicators were positive for vaginal bacteria DNA and the control eukaryotic gene, amelogenin, while manually handled, "sham", applicators were negative for both. Semen exposure was independently determined by simultaneous amplification of one or both Y-chromosomal genes, SRY and TSPY4. Vaginal insertion determination by DNA analysis was further confirmed by positive cytokeratin 4 (CK4) immunocytochemistry of vaginal cells remaining on the gel applicators. On the contrary, sham applicators provided very few cells when swabbed, and they were all negative for CK4. CK4 was not found in epidermal cells from the hand. Drug expulsion was detected through quantitation of residual gel present on the surface of returned applicators. Sham applicators had no detectable tenofovir.
conclusionUtilizing a composite, triple marker based panel of DNA, protein, and drug present on the surface of returned vaginal gel applicators, it is possible to determine, objectively and non-invasively, product adherence, protocol compliance, and semen exposure in microbicide trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.