Recent sexual violence exposure is associated with immune biomarkers of HIV susceptibility in women.

PROBLEM: HIV/AIDS and sexual violence act synergistically and compromise women's health. Yet, immuno-biological mechanisms linking sexual violence and increased HIV susceptibility are poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional pilot study of HIV-uninfected women, comparing 13 women exposed to forced vaginal penetration within the past 12 weeks (Exposed) with 25 Non-Exposed women. ELISA assays were conducted for 49 biomarkers associated with HIV pathogenesis in plasma and cervicovaginal lavage (CVL). Differences between Exposed and Non-Exposed were analyzed by linear and logistic regression, using propensity score weighting to control for age, race, socioeconomic status, menstrual cycle, and contraceptive use. RESULTS: In CVL, Exposed women had significantly reduced chemokines MIP-3α (p < .01), MCP-1 (p < .01), and anti-HIV/wound-healing thrombospondin-1 (p = .03). They also had significantly increased inflammatory cytokine IL-1α (p < 0.01) and were more likely to have detectable wound-healing PDGF (p = .02). In plasma, Exposed women had reduced chemokines MIP-3α (p < .01) and IL-8 (p < .01), anti-inflammatory cytokine TGF-ß (p = .02), anti-HIV/antimicrobial HBD-2 (p = .02), and wound-healing MMP-1 (p = 0.02). They also had increased thrombospondin-1 (p < .01) and Cathepsin B (p = .01). After applying the stringent method of false discovery rate adjustment, differences for IL-1α (p = .05) and MCP-1 (p = .03) in CVL and MIP-3α (p = .03) in plasma remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: We report systemic and mucosal immune dysregulation in women exposed to sexual violence. As these biomarkers have been associated with HIV pathogenesis, dysregulation may increase HIV susceptibility.

Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or midturbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-through car line for symptomatic individuals (n = 380) and in the emergency department (ED) (n = 69). The percentages of positive and negative agreement of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab were 81.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.8% to 90.5%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 98.7% to 100%), respectively. The percent positive agreement increased to 90.0% (95% CI, 74.4% to 96.5%) when considering only samples with moderate to high viral load (cycle threshold [CT ] for the NP, ≤34). Pools of five saliva specimens were also evaluated on three platforms, bioMérieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion, and Roche Cobas 6800. The average loss of signal upon pooling was 2 to 3 CT values across the platforms. The sensitivities of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually were 94%, 90%, and 94% for the CDC 2019-nCoV real-time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay, and Cobas SARS-CoV-2 test, respectively, with decreased sample detection trending with lower viral load. We conclude that although pooled saliva testing, as collected in this study, is not quite as sensitive as NP/MT testing, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals with higher viral loads in an asymptomatic screening program, does not require swabs or viral transport medium for collection, and may help to improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections.

Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or mid-turbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-through car line for symptomatic individuals (N=380) and in the emergency department (ED) (N=69). The percent positive and negative agreement of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab were 81.1% (95% CI: 65.8% - 90.5%) and 99.8% (95% CI: 98.7% - 100%), respectively. The sensitivity increased to 90.0% (95% CI: 74.4% - 96.5%) when considering only samples with moderate to high viral load (Cycle threshold (Ct) for the NP <=34). Pools of five saliva specimens were also evaluated on three platforms: bioMérieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion, and Roche COBAS 6800. The median loss of signal upon pooling was 2-4 Ct values across the platforms. The sensitivity of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually was 100%, 93%, and 95% for CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion® SARS-CoV-2 assay, and cobas® SARS-CoV-2 test respectively, with decreased sample detection trending with lower viral load. We conclude that although pooled saliva testing, as collected in this study, is not quite as sensitive as NP/MT testing, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals with higher viral loads in an asymptomatic screening program, does not require swabs or viral transport media for collection, and may help to improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections.

Challenges in conducting research on sexual violence and HIV and approaches to overcome them.

Studies have implicated sexual violence as a strong correlate of HIV acquisition in women. Characterizing how such violence affects the female immune system may provide insight into the biological mechanisms of HIV transmission and ultimately improve global HIV prevention strategies. Little research has been carried out in this domain, and the obstacles to investigation can be daunting. Here, we describe methodological challenges encountered and solutions explored while implementing a study of dysregulation of immune biomarkers potentially indicative of increased HIV susceptibility in women following sexual assault. Challenges included accessing sexual assault survivors and defining sexual assault, promoting study participant well-being during research engagement, reducing selection and information bias, collecting and processing biological samples, and adjusting for confounders such as reproductive tract infections and emotional and physical abuse. We found that many survivors of sexual assault welcomed the attention from study staff and felt empowered by the opportunity to help other women at risk for violence. Well-trained research staff and well-articulated community and medical partnerships were key methods to overcoming challenges while promoting the safety and welfare of vulnerable study participants.