TY - JOUR
T1 - Feasibility of Home Collection for Urogenital Microbiome Samples
AU - The PLUS Research Consortium
AU - Lukacz, Emily S.
AU - Fok, Cynthia
AU - Bryant, MacKenzie
AU - Rodriguez-Ponciano, Dulce P.
AU - Meister, Melanie R.
AU - Mueller, Margaret G.
AU - Lewis, Cora E.
AU - Lowder, Jerry L.
AU - Smith, Ariana L.
AU - Stapleton, Ann
AU - Ayala, Amy
AU - Pakpahan, Ratna
AU - Hortsch, Sarah
AU - McDonald, Daniel
AU - Putnam, Sara
AU - Rudser, Kyle
AU - Song, Se Jin
AU - Knight, Rob
AU - Brubaker, Linda
AU - Mueller, Elizabeth R.
AU - Acevedo-Alvarez, Marian
AU - Fitzgerald, Colleen M.
AU - Hardacker, Cecilia T.
AU - Hebert-Beirne, Jeni
AU - Griffith, James W.
AU - Kenton, Kimberly Sue
AU - Simon, Melissa
AU - Brown, Oluwateniola
AU - Geynisman-Tan, Julia
AU - Mueller, Margaret
AU - Markland, Alayne D.
AU - Vaughan, Camille P.
AU - Coyne-Beasley, Tamera
AU - Burgio, Kathryn L.
AU - Mcgwin, Gerald
AU - Williams, Beverly Rosa
AU - Lacoursiere, D. Yvette
AU - Gahagan, Sheila
AU - Nodora, Jesse
AU - Low, Lisa Kane
AU - Miller, Janis M.
AU - Smith, Abby
AU - Rudser, Kyle D.
AU - Brady, Sonya S.
AU - Harlow, Bernard L
AU - Scal, Peter B
AU - Rockwood, Todd
AU - Newman, Diane K.
AU - Berry, Amanda
AU - Wyman, Jean F
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 American Urogynecologic Society. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024/11/1
Y1 - 2024/11/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85207665696&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85207665696&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/spv.0000000000001544
DO - 10.1097/spv.0000000000001544
M3 - Article
C2 - 38958286
AN - SCOPUS:85207665696
SN - 2151-8378
VL - 30
SP - 896
EP - 905
JO - Urogynecology
JF - Urogynecology
IS - 11
ER -