METHODS: De-identified residual specimens from women aged 16-24 years submitted for chlamydia testing were collected from three pathology laboratories in Victoria and New South Wales. Limited demographic information, and chlamydia test results were also collected. Patient identifiers were sent directly from the laboratories to the National HPV Vaccination Program Register, to obtain HPV vaccination histories. Samples underwent HPV genotyping using Seegene Anyplex II HPV 28 assay.
RESULTS: Between April and July 2018, 362 residual samples were collected, the majority (60.2%) of which were cervical swabs. Demographic data and vaccination histories were received for 357 (98.6%) women (mean age 21.8, SD 2.0). Overall, 65.6% of women were fully vaccinated, 9.8% partially, and 24.7% unvaccinated. The majority (86.0%) resided in a major city, 35.9% were classified in the upper quintile of socioeconomic advantage and chlamydia positivity was 7.8%.The prevalence of quadrivalent vaccine-targeted types (HPV6/11/16/18) was 2.8% (1.5-5.1%) overall with no differences by vaccination status (p = 0.729). The prevalence of additional nonavalent vaccine-targeted types (HPV31/33/45/52/58) was 19.3% (15.6-23.8%). One or more oncogenic HPV types were detected in 46.8% (95% CI 41.6-52.0%) of women.
CONCLUSIONS: HPV testing of residual chlamydia specimens provides a simple, feasible method for monitoring circulating genotypes. Applied on a larger scale this method can be utilised to obtain a timely assessment of nonavalent vaccine impact among young women not yet eligible for cervical screening.
Methods: Participants (GP-allergic with AR, 330; non-atopic, 29; other allergies, 54) were recruited in subtropical: Queensland, and temperate: New South Wales, Western and South Australia, regions. Clinical history, skin prick test (SPT), total and specific IgE to GP and purified allergens (ImmunoCAP) were evaluated. Cross-inhibition of sIgE with Pas n 1, Cyn d 1 and Lol p 1 by GP extracts was investigated.
Results: Queensland participants showed higher sensitisation to P. notatum and C. dactylon than L. perenne GP. sIgE was higher to Pas n 1 and Cyn d 1, and sIgE to Pas n 1 and Cyn d 1 was inhibited more by Panicoideae and Chloridoideae, respectively, than Pooideae GP. Conversely, participants from temperate regions showed highest sensitisation levels to L. perenne GP and Lol p 1, and sIgE to Lol p 1 was inhibited more by Pooideae than other GP.
Conclusion: Levels and patterns of sensitisation to subtropical and temperate GP in AR patients depended on biogeography. Knowledge of the specificity of sensitisation to local allergens is important for optimal diagnosis and choice of allergen-specific immunotherapy to maximise benefit.
METHODS: This study was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted from March 2008 to February 2009 in a tertiary referral hospital at Sydney. The primary end point was cecal intubation time and the secondary endpoint was polyp detection rate. Consecutive cases of total colonoscopy over a 1-year period were recruited. Randomization into either standard colonoscopy (SC) or cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) was performed after consent was obtained. For cases randomized to CAC, one of the three sizes of cap was used: D-201-15004 (with a diameter of 15.3 mm), D-201-14304 (14.6 mm) and D-201-12704 (13.0 mm). All of these caps were produced by Olympus Medical Systems, Japan. Independent predictors for faster cecal time and better polyp detection rate were also determined from this study.
RESULTS: There were 200 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in terms of demographic characteristics between the two groups. CAC, when compared to the SC group, had no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation rate (96.0% vs 97.0%, P = 0.40) and time (9.94 +/- 7.05 min vs 10.34 +/- 6.82 min, P = 0.21), or polyp detection rate (32.8% vs 31.3%, P = 0.75). On the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation time by trainees (88.1% vs 84.8%, P = 0.40), ileal intubation rate (82.5% vs 79.0%, P = 0.38) or total colonoscopy time (23.24 +/- 13.95 min vs 22.56 +/- 9.94 min, P = 0.88). On multivariate analysis, the independent determinants of faster cecal time were consultant-performed procedures (P < 0.001), male patients (P < 0.001), non-usage of hyoscine (P < 0.001) and better bowel preparation (P = 0.01). The determinants of better polyp detection rate were older age (P < 0.001), no history of previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.04), patients not having esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the same setting (P = 0.003), trainee-performed procedures (P = 0.01), usage of hyoscine (P = 0.01) and procedures performed for polyp follow-up (P = 0.01). The limitations of the study were that it was a single-center experience, no blinding was possible, and there were a large number of endoscopists.
CONCLUSION: CAC did not significantly different from SC in term of cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.