Feasibility of Home Collection for Urogenital Microbiome Samples.

IF 0.8 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.) Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-03 DOI:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001544
Emily S Lukacz, Cynthia S Fok, MacKenzie Bryant, Dulce P Rodriguez-Ponciano, Melanie R Meister, Margaret G Mueller, Cora E Lewis, Jerry L Lowder, Ariana L Smith, Ann Stapleton, Amy Ayala, Ratna Pakpahan, Sarah Hortsch, Daniel McDonald, Sara Putnam, Kyle Rudser, Se Jin Song, Rob Knight, Linda Brubaker
{"title":"Feasibility of Home Collection for Urogenital Microbiome Samples.","authors":"Emily S Lukacz, Cynthia S Fok, MacKenzie Bryant, Dulce P Rodriguez-Ponciano, Melanie R Meister, Margaret G Mueller, Cora E Lewis, Jerry L Lowder, Ariana L Smith, Ann Stapleton, Amy Ayala, Ratna Pakpahan, Sarah Hortsch, Daniel McDonald, Sara Putnam, Kyle Rudser, Se Jin Song, Rob Knight, Linda Brubaker","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Feasibility of home urogenital microbiome specimen collection is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate successful sample collection rates from home and clinical research centers.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Adult women participants enrolled in a multicentered cohort study were recruited to an in-person research center evaluation, including self-collected urogenital samples. A nested feasibility substudy evaluated home biospecimen collection prior to the scheduled in-person evaluation using a home collection kit with written instructions, sample collection supplies, and a Peezy™ urine collection device. Participants self-collected samples at home and shipped them to a central laboratory 1 day prior to and the day of the in-person evaluation. We defined successful collection as receipt of at least one urine specimen that was visibly viable for sequencing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 156 participants invited to the feasibility substudy, 134 were enrolled and sent collection kits with 89% (119/134) returning at least 1 home urine specimen; the laboratory determined that 79% (106/134) of these urine samples were visually viable for analysis. The laboratory received self-collected urine from the research center visit in 97% (115/119); 76% (91/119) were visually viable for sequencing. Among 401 women who did not participate in the feasibility home collection substudy, 98% (394/401) self-collected urine at the research center with 80% (321/401) returned and visibly viable for sequencing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Home collection of urogenital microbiome samples for research is feasible, with comparable success to clinical research center collection. Sample size adjustment should plan for technical and logistical difficulties, regardless of specimen collection site.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11502285/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001544","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Feasibility of home urogenital microbiome specimen collection is unknown.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate successful sample collection rates from home and clinical research centers.

Study design: Adult women participants enrolled in a multicentered cohort study were recruited to an in-person research center evaluation, including self-collected urogenital samples. A nested feasibility substudy evaluated home biospecimen collection prior to the scheduled in-person evaluation using a home collection kit with written instructions, sample collection supplies, and a Peezy™ urine collection device. Participants self-collected samples at home and shipped them to a central laboratory 1 day prior to and the day of the in-person evaluation. We defined successful collection as receipt of at least one urine specimen that was visibly viable for sequencing.

Results: Of 156 participants invited to the feasibility substudy, 134 were enrolled and sent collection kits with 89% (119/134) returning at least 1 home urine specimen; the laboratory determined that 79% (106/134) of these urine samples were visually viable for analysis. The laboratory received self-collected urine from the research center visit in 97% (115/119); 76% (91/119) were visually viable for sequencing. Among 401 women who did not participate in the feasibility home collection substudy, 98% (394/401) self-collected urine at the research center with 80% (321/401) returned and visibly viable for sequencing.

Conclusions: Home collection of urogenital microbiome samples for research is feasible, with comparable success to clinical research center collection. Sample size adjustment should plan for technical and logistical difficulties, regardless of specimen collection site.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在家中采集泌尿生殖系统微生物组样本的可行性。
重要性家庭泌尿生殖系统微生物组标本采集的可行性尚不清楚:本研究旨在评估家庭和临床研究中心样本采集的成功率:研究设计:招募参加多中心队列研究的成年女性参加研究中心的现场评估,包括自采泌尿生殖系统样本。一项嵌套可行性子研究评估了在预定的面对面评估之前进行家庭生物样本采集的情况,该研究使用了带有书面说明的家庭采集工具包、样本采集用品和 Peezy™ 尿液采集装置。参与者在家自行采集样本,并在亲自评估的前一天和当天将样本运送到中心实验室。我们将成功采集定义为至少收到一份可进行测序的尿液样本:在应邀参加可行性子研究的 156 名参与者中,有 134 人参加了研究并收到了采集包,其中 89% 的参与者(119/134)至少送回了一份家庭尿液标本;实验室确定这些尿液标本中有 79% (106/134)可用于分析。实验室收到了 97% (115/119)的研究中心访问自采尿样;76% (91/119)的尿样经目测可用于测序。在 401 名未参加可行性家庭收集子研究的女性中,98%(394/401)的人在研究中心自取了尿液,其中 80%(321/401)的尿液被送回并在测序时明显存活:结论:家庭收集泌尿生殖系统微生物组样本用于研究是可行的,其成功率与临床研究中心收集的相当。无论样本采集地点如何,调整样本量时都应考虑到技术和后勤方面的困难。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Development and Validation of a Simulation Model for Ureteral Stent Placement. Implementing a Digital Platform for Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections. Unexpected Pathology During Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair in an Urban Population. Green Cystoscopy: Does Minimizing the Use of Drapes Increase Infection Rates? Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trial: KIM Sling With Reusable Trocars Versus TVT Exact Sling.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1