ArticleInfection2026
Topical trichloroacetic acid versus electrocautery for treatment of anal intraepithelial neoplasia in people living with HIV: a multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial (TECAIN-study).
Article in Infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare efficacy and safety of topical trichloroacetic acid (TCA) versus electrocautery (ECA) for the treatment of human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) in people living with HIV (PLWH).
methodsThe TECAIN-study was a prospective, multicentre, randomised (1:1 block-randomisation), open-label, non-inferiority trial in PLWH with histologically confirmed AIN recruited from seven German proctological units. The primary endpoint (PE) was therapeutic success defined as a combination of complete clinical response evaluated by high-resolution-anoscopy and histological AIN-clearance/regression four weeks after the end-of-treatment (4-weeks-follow-up, 4WFU). Secondary endpoints were assessed at 4WFU and 24WFU. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat-population as primary analysis with a non-inferiority margin of -12%.
resultsOf 659 PLWH screened with HRA, 257 patients with AIN were randomised. Therapeutic outcome was assessed in 233 PLWH (TCA n = 118, ECA n = 115). The PE was reached in 62 patients of the TCA-group (52.5%) versus 71 patients of the ECA-group (61.7%) (difference in proportion - 9.2%, 95%CI -21.8% to 3.5%). While non-inferiority of TCA could not be shown for the PE at 4WFU, TCA was non-inferior to ECA at 24WFU (therapeutic success 50.8% vs. 48.7% (difference 2.2%, 95%CI -10.7% to 15.0%)). Adverse events occurred in 67.8% in both groups at 4WFU (mostly mild or moderate). Severe treatment-related pain was significantly less frequent in the TCA-group (4.2%) compared to the ECA-group (14.8%). HPV-findings did not differ between treatment groups between baseline and follow-up visits.
conclusionTCA is an effective, well-tolerated and less complex alternative to ECA for the treatment of AIN in PLWH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42430115What 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.