A randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to compare the efficacy of ‘HPV screen, triage and treat’ with ‘HPV screen and treat’ approach for cervical cancer prevention among women living with HIV

Smita Joshi (), Richard Muwonge, Ramesh Bhosale, Pritam Chaudhari, Vinay Kulkarni, Mahesh Mandolkar, Kedar Deodhar, Seema Kand, Nikhil Phadke, Shobini Rajan, B. Kishore Kumar, Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan and Partha Basu
Additional contact information
Smita Joshi: Deccan Gymkhana
Richard Muwonge: International Agency for Research on Cancer
Ramesh Bhosale: Deccan Gymkhana
Pritam Chaudhari: Deccan Gymkhana
Vinay Kulkarni: Deccan Gymkhana
Mahesh Mandolkar: Deccan Gymkhana
Kedar Deodhar: Tata Memorial Centre
Seema Kand: Deccan Gymkhana
Nikhil Phadke: I-SHARE Foundation
Shobini Rajan: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
B. Kishore Kumar: Consilx
Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan: Kerala Operations
Partha Basu: International Agency for Research on Cancer

Nature Communications, 2025, vol. 16, issue 1, 1-11

Abstract: Abstract We report results of a randomized controlled trial to compare ‘HPV screen and treat’ (Arm 1) and ‘HPV screen, triage and treat’ (Arm 2) in women living with HIV (WLHIV), using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) as the triaging test. Treatment was offered to all HPV-positive women in Arm 1 and to VIA-positive women in Arm 2 with either thermal ablation or large loop excision. All women underwent a repeat HPV test one year after randomization. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of HPV clearance of Arm 2 at one-year follow up when compared to Arm 1. Of 544 HPV-positive consenting WLHIV, 433 were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to trial arms. At baseline, CIN 2/3 lesions were detected in 16.7% and 13.3% women in Arm 1 and Arm 2 respectively. HPV clearance was observed in 56.6% (95%CI 48.9-64.1) women in Arm 1 and 41.4% (95%CI 34.3-48.7) women in Arm 2 at follow-up in the intention-to-treat population (P = 0.004). ‘HPV screen, VIA triage and treat’ strategy was non-inferior to the ‘screen and treat’ strategy as the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval from the regression model was greater than 0.49 in both intention-to-treat analysis (RR 0.73, 95%CI 0.59-0.91) and per-protocol analysis (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.60-0.93) according to the pre-specified analysis plan. Clinical trial registration: CTRI/2020/02/023349.

Date: 2025
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56926-3 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-56926-3

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/ncomms/

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-56926-3

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Communications is currently edited by Nathalie Le Bot, Enda Bergin and Fiona Gillespie

More articles in Nature Communications from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().