ABSTRACT
Globally, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among females and a major public health problem in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There are several screening tests available for cervical cancer screening; however, due to a lack of organised screening facilities as well as factors such as low participation rates in screening programmes, many women die due to cervical cancer. To reach out to a large number of women, an easy, non-invasive and time-saving screening method is required. Evidence supports that cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid (HPV DNA) testing is the most effective technique for lowering the incidence and mortality associated with cervical cancer when compared to other screening methods. Furthermore, a small number of studies have reported that menstrual blood can be used as an alternative sample for HPV detection for cervical cancer screening. We have done a systematic review of the studies that have reported the diagnostic accuracy of menstrual blood to detect HPV. We found five studies in our literature search. The studies showed the diagnostic accuracy of menstrual blood in terms of sensitivity ranging from 82.8% to 97.7% and specificity ranging from 50.0% to 98.0% in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or HPV infection detection. This review supports the use of menstrual blood as a screening tool for cervical cancer especially in LMICs where women are reluctant to participate in cervical cancer screening due to issues such as embarrassment and discomfort to test procedures as well as busy schedules. However, further studies are required to compare the diagnostic accuracy of menstrual blood in detecting HPV compared to other self-sampled HPV detection methods. This is one of the methods that can be explored further for use as a cervical cancer screening test.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There are sparse longitudinal data on SARS-CoV-2 infection after previous infection and after partial or full vaccination. METHODS: This study of a cohort of healthcare workers used Kaplan-Meier analysis with appropriate definition of events and censoring and used Cox models to assess outcomes, with data cut-off on June 18, 2021. RESULTS: A total of 1806 individuals with median age of 32 (18-64) years, 1483 (82.1%) with at least one vaccine dose, 1085 (60.1%) with 2 vaccine doses, 408 (22.6%) with at least one episode of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 6 (1.47%) with 2 episodes of infection were included in the analysis. At median follow-up of 38.4 weeks after first SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=408), the 52-week probability of reinfection was 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0-4.91%); and at median follow-up of 13.3 weeks after second dose, the 16-week probability of breakthrough infection was 5.6% (95% CI, 4.33-7.23%), which was significantly higher among those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection versus with previous infection (6.4% vs 1.8%, p=0.016, adjusted Cox HR=3.49, 95% CI, 1.09-11.20, p=0.036) and females versus males (7.9% vs 3.8%, p=0.007, adjusted Cox HR=2.06, 95% CI 1.19-3.56, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There was low probability of reinfection after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and higher vaccine breakthrough infections among females and those without previous infection.
