BACKGROUND: Self-administered swabs are used to sample vaginal contents for a variety of clinical purposes including detection of sexually transmitted infections, condom breakage, and vaginal product use. The goal of this study was to determine whether a quantitative glycogen assay can be used to assess whether a swab has been exposed to the vagina to assure study compliance. STUDY DESIGN: Buccal, skin, or vaginal samples were tested to determine whether a commercial quantitative glycogen assay can differentiate vaginal specimens. In addition, archived remnant de-identified vaginal swabs from clinical trials were tested. Periodic acid-Schiff stain was used to identify glycogen-positive cells as a confirmation test. RESULTS: Glycogen concentrations in eluates of vaginal swabs from reproductive-aged women were significantly higher than those from unused swabs (mean ± SE, 964 ± 135 μg/mL vs. 14.7 ± 2.5 μg/mL, P < 0.001) and swabs exposed to buccal and finger/hand epithelia (40.3 ± 4.8 and 18.5 ± 5.4 μg/mL, P < 0.001). Glycogen concentrations were lower and more variable in vaginal swabs from older perimenopausal/menopausal women (mean ± SE, 235 ± 123, P < 0.01). Semen and sample storage longer than 1 year did not affect glycogen detection. Using a cutoff of 100 μg/mL of glycogen, 30 of 30 vaginal swabs from reproductive-aged women versus 0 of 28 control swabs were positive, for an assay sensitivity of 1 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-1) and specificity of 1 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-1). Periodic acid-Schiff stain correlated with soluble glycogen results but was less specific. CONCLUSIONS: The quantitative glycogen assay provides a simple and inexpensive method to validate the use of self-administered swabs for sampling vaginal contents in clinical studies.
BACKGROUND: Self-administered swabs are used to sample vaginal contents for a variety of clinical purposes including detection of sexually transmitted infections, condom breakage, and vaginal product use. The goal of this study was to determine whether a quantitative glycogen assay can be used to assess whether a swab has been exposed to the vagina to assure study compliance. STUDY DESIGN: Buccal, skin, or vaginal samples were tested to determine whether a commercial quantitative glycogen assay can differentiate vaginal specimens. In addition, archived remnant de-identified vaginal swabs from clinical trials were tested. Periodic acid-Schiff stain was used to identify glycogen-positive cells as a confirmation test. RESULTS:Glycogen concentrations in eluates of vaginal swabs from reproductive-aged women were significantly higher than those from unused swabs (mean ± SE, 964 ± 135 μg/mL vs. 14.7 ± 2.5 μg/mL, P < 0.001) and swabs exposed to buccal and finger/hand epithelia (40.3 ± 4.8 and 18.5 ± 5.4 μg/mL, P < 0.001). Glycogen concentrations were lower and more variable in vaginal swabs from older perimenopausal/menopausal women (mean ± SE, 235 ± 123, P < 0.01). Semen and sample storage longer than 1 year did not affect glycogen detection. Using a cutoff of 100 μg/mL of glycogen, 30 of 30 vaginal swabs from reproductive-aged women versus 0 of 28 control swabs were positive, for an assay sensitivity of 1 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-1) and specificity of 1 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-1). Periodic acid-Schiff stain correlated with soluble glycogen results but was less specific. CONCLUSIONS: The quantitative glycogen assay provides a simple and inexpensive method to validate the use of self-administered swabs for sampling vaginal contents in clinical studies.
Authors: Ann Duerr; Maria F Gallo; Lee Warner; Denise J Jamieson; Andrzej Kulczycki; Maurizio Macaluso Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Quarraisha Abdool Karim; Salim S Abdool Karim; Janet A Frohlich; Anneke C Grobler; Cheryl Baxter; Leila E Mansoor; Ayesha B M Kharsany; Sengeziwe Sibeko; Koleka P Mlisana; Zaheen Omar; Tanuja N Gengiah; Silvia Maarschalk; Natasha Arulappan; Mukelisiwe Mlotshwa; Lynn Morris; Douglas Taylor Journal: Science Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Sally B Rose; Beverley A Lawton; Collette Bromhead; E Jane Macdonald; Kim A Lund Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: Charlene S Dezzutti; Craig W Hendrix; Jeanne M Marrazzo; Zhenyu Pan; Lei Wang; Nicolette Louissaint; Sabah Kalyoussef; N Merna Torres; Florian Hladik; Urvi Parikh; John Mellors; Sharon L Hillier; Betsy C Herold Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-08-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maria P Lemos; Erica Lazarus; Abby Isaacs; Janan Dietrich; Cecilia Morgan; Yunda Huang; Doug Grove; Michele Andrasik; Fatima Laher; John Hural; Eva Chung; Joan Dragavon; Adrian Puren; Reena K Gulati; Robert Coombs; Margaret Juliana McElrath; Glenda Gray; James G Kublin Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.731