Status
Conditions
Treatments
Study type
Funder types
Identifiers
About
Context. Cervical cancer (CC) is a leading cause of death among women living with HIV (WLHIV) in resource-limited settings. Yet, effective methods for screening and preventing CC are available. The recommanded approach for CC screening is based on multiple steps, including initial test to detect human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, visual inspection to identify women with HPV at risk for precancerous lesion and treatment when required.
Dropout may occur at these different steps, compromising the success of the CC elimination strategy. Performing all the screening and treatment sequences in a single visit has been recommanded based on the results of a large South African trial. Yet, in many contexts, including those with limited resources, the screening and treatment activities are performed in multiple visites for logistical reasons, resulting in many dropouts.
Different strategies for delivering screening with HPV testing for WLHIV are possible. A first approach ("centralized approach") consists of having well equipped reference centres with experienced health workers and referring women to these centers. An alternative consists of having a mobile unit who can bring equipment and health workers and perform the CC screening in the usual places of patient care ("decentralised" or mobile team approach). Each of these two approaches has advantages and limitations in terms of coverage, completeness, cost and quality of screening. It is necessary to evaluate them in real life to inform national decision-makers on the best strategy to use in their countries.
The OptiTri-MU study aims to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of these two strategies for delivering CC screening ("centralized" screening versus "decentralized" screening). It will also assess the implementation of each strategy and include three sub-studies designed to evaluate :
The study will also assess the implementation of each screening strategy in terms of :
Other study objectives include :
Full description
Context. Cervical cancer (CC) is a leading cause of death among women living with HIV (WLHIV) in resource-limited settings. Yet, effective methods for screening and preventing CC are available. The recommanded approach for CC screening is based on multiple steps, including initial test to detect human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, visual inspection to identify women with HPV at risk for precancerous lesion and treatment when required.
Dropout may occur at these different steps, compromising the success of the CC elimination strategy. Performing all the screening and treatment sequences in a single visit has been recommanded based on the results of a large South African trial. Yet, in many contexts, including those with limited resources, the screening and treatment activities are performed in multiple visites for logistical reasons, resulting in many dropouts.
Different strategies for delivering screening with HPV testing for WLHIV are possible. A first approach ("centralized approach") consists of having well equipped reference centres with experienced health workers and referring women to these centers. An alternative consists of having a mobile unit who can bring equipment and health workers and perform the CC screening in the usual places of patient care ("decentralised" or mobile team approach). Each of these two approaches has advantages and limitations in terms of coverage, completeness, cost and quality of screening. It is necessary to evaluate them in real life to inform national decision-makers on the best strategy to use in their countries.
The OptiTri-MU study aims to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of these two strategies for delivering CC screening ("centralized" screening versus "decentralized" screening). It will also assess the implementation of each strategy and include three sub-studies designed to evaluate :
The study will also assess the implementation of each screening strategy in terms of :
Other study objectives include :
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Deferred inclusion if
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
1,180 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Central trial contact
Andre-Pascal Goura, MD
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal