Feasibility, safety and tolerability of estrogen and/or probiotics for improving vaginal health in Canadian African, Caribbean, and Black women: A pilot phase 1 clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A dysbiotic vaginal microbiome (VMB) is associated with clinical conditions such as bacterial vaginosis (BV) and an increased risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infection. Considering the high prevalence of BV among African, Caribbean and Black (ACB) women, we conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label phase 1 clinical trial to determine the feasibility, safety and tolerability of administering low-dose estrogen, probiotics or both in combination to improve vaginal health and decrease HIV-1 susceptibility. METHODS: ACB women aged 18-49 from the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) were randomized to one of four study arms: intravaginal estradiol (Estring©; 7.5mg/day); a vaginal probiotic (RepHresh™ Pro-B™) administered twice daily; a combination of Estring© and vaginal RepHresh™ Pro-B™ (twice daily); or the Estring© and oral RepHresh™ Pro-B™ (twice daily), for a duration of 30 days. Feasibility was evaluated through enrolment, retention, and adherence rates, while safety and tolerability were determined by a pre- and post-treatment blood panel and reported adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Overall, 63 ACB women were screened, 50 were enrolled and received the intervention while 41 completed the study, resulting in 80% enrollment and 82% retention rates. Overall adherence to the study protocol was high at 93%, with an adherence of 92% for RepHresh™ Pro-B™ and 97% for Estring©. A total of 88 AEs were reported by 29 participants which were mild (66/88; 75%) and largely resolved (82/88;93%) by the end of the study, with no serious AEs (SAEs) noted. In addition, a panel of safety blood markers measured pre- and post-intervention confirmed no clinically significant changes in blood chemistry or blood cell count. CONCLUSION: Overall, the administration of intravaginal estrogen and/or probiotics in pre-menopausal ACB women is feasible, safe, and well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03837015) and CIHR HIV Clinical Trials (CTN308).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".