Home versus clinic-based specimen collection for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae

Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 183-194

  Graseck, Anna S ^a   Shih, Shirley L ^a   Peipert, Jeffrey F ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Chlamydia trachomatis; home collection kits; home screening; postal specimens; self collected specimens; sexually transmitted infections

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; COMMUNITY CARE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HOME CARE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERNET; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; NEISSERIA GONORRHOEAE; NON INVASIVE MEASUREMENT; POSTAL MAIL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; SELF EVALUATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; URINE;

CHLAMYDIA INFECTIONS; CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS; FEMALE; GONORRHEA; HUMANS; MALE; NEISSERIA GONORRHOEAE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REAGENT KITS, DIAGNOSTIC; SELF CARE; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES, BACTERIAL; SPECIMEN HANDLING; URINE; VAGINA;

EID: 79952139749     PISSN: 14787210     EISSN: 17448336     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/eri.10.164     Document Type: Review

References (74)

1. Health Protection Agency. Sexually Transmitted Infections and Young People in the United Kingdom: 2008 Report. Health Protection Agency, London, UK (2008).
2. National Chlamydia Screening Programme. The Bigger Picture: The National Chlamydia Screening Programme 2008/09 Annual Report. Health Protection Agency, London, UK (2009).
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2008. CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA (2009).
4. Miller WC, Ford CA, Morris M et al. Prevalence of chlamydial and gonococcal infections among young adults in the United States. JAMA 291(18), 2229-2236 (2004).
5. Meyers DS, Halvorson H, Luckhaupt S. Screening for chlamydial infection: an evidence update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann. Intern. Med. 147(2), 135-142 (2007).
6. Kodaman PH, Arici A, Seli E. Evidence-based diagnosis and management of tubal factor infertility. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 16(3), 221-229 (2004).
7. Hillis SD, Owens LM, Marchbanks PA, Amsterdam LF, MacKenzie WR. Recurrent chlamydial infections increase the risks of hospitalization for ectopic pregnancy and pelvic inflammatory disease. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 176(1 Pt 1), 103-107 (1997).
8. Hillis SD, Nakashima A, Amsterdam L et al. The impact of a comprehensive chlamydia prevention program in Wisconsin. Fam. Plann. Perspect. 27(3), 108-111 (1995).
9. Kamwendo F, Forslin L, Bodin L, Danielsson D. Decreasing incidences of gonorrhea- and chlamydia-associated acute pelvic inflammatory disease. A 25-year study from an urban area of central Sweden. Sex. Transm. Dis. 23(5), 384-391 (1996).
10. Sutton MY, Sternberg M, Zaidi A, St Louis ME, Markowitz LE. Trends in pelvic inflammatory disease hospital discharges and ambulatory visits, United States, 1985-2001. Sex. Transm. Dis. 32(12), 778-784 (2005).
11. Egger M, Low N, Smith GD, Lindblom B, Herrmann B. Screening for chlamydial infections and the risk of ectopic pregnancy in a county in Sweden: ecological analysis. Br. Med. J. 316(7147), 1776-1780 (1998).
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Chlamydia screening among sexually active young female enrollees of health plans - United States, 2000-2007. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 58(14), 362-365 (2009).
13. Levine WC, Dicker LW, Devine O, Mosure DJ. Indirect estimation of Chlamydia screening coverage using public health surveillance data. Am. J. Epidemiol. 160(1), 91-96 (2004).
14. Cook RL, Wiesenfeld HC, Ashton MR, Krohn MA, Zamborsky T, Scholle SH. Barriers to screening sexually active adolescent women for chlamydia: a survey of primary care physicians. J. Adolesc. Health 28(3), 204-210 (2001).
15. St Lawrence JS, Montano DE, Kasprzyk D, Phillips WR, Armstrong K, Leichliter JS. STD screening, testing, case reporting, and clinical and partner notification practices: a national survey of US physicians. Am. J. Public Health 92(11), 1784-1788 (2002).
16. Wiesenfeld HC, Lowry DL, Heine RP et al. Self-collection of vaginal swabs for the detection of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis: opportunity to encourage sexually transmitted disease testing among adolescents. Sex. Transm. Dis. 28(6), 321-325 (2001).
17. Pavlin NL, Gunn JM, Parker R, Fairley CK, Hocking J. Implementing chlamydia screening: what do women think? A systematic review of the literature. BMC Public Health 6, 221 (2006).
18. Schachter J. NAATs to diagnose Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection: a promise still unfulfilled. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 1(2), 137-144 (2001).
19. Watson EJ, Templeton A, Russell I et al. The accuracy and efficacy of screening tests for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review. J. Med. Microbiol. 51(12), 1021-1031 (2002).
20. Schachter J, Chernesky MA, Willis DE et al. Vaginal swabs are the specimens of choice when screening for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: results from a multicenter evaluation of the APTIMA assays for both infections. Sex. Transm. Dis. 32(12), 725-728 (2005).
21. Cosentino LA, Landers DV, Hillier SL. Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae by strand displacement amplification and relevance of the amplification control for use with vaginal swab specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41(8), 3592-3596 (2003).
22. Cook RL, Hutchison SL, Ostergaard L, Braithwaite RS, Ness RB. Systematic review: noninvasive testing for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Ann. Intern. Med. 142(11), 914-925 (2005).
23. Hobbs MM, van der Pol B, Totten P et al. From the NIH: proceedings of a workshop on the importance of self-obtained vaginal specimens for detection of sexually transmitted infections. Sex. Transm. Dis. 35(1), 8-13 (2008).
24. Buhrer-Skinner M, Muller R, Bialasiewicz S et al. The check is in the mail: piloting a novel approach to Chlamydia trachomatis testing using self-collected, mailed specimen. Sex. Health 6(2), 163-169 (2009).
25. Bialasiewicz S, Whiley DM, Buhrer-Skinner M et al. A novel gel-based method for self-collection and ambient temperature postal transport of urine for PCR detection of Chlamydia trachomatis. Sex. Transm. Infect. 85(2), 102-105 (2009).
26. Morre SA, van Valkengoed IG, de Jong A et al. Mailed, home-obtained urine specimens: a reliable screening approach for detecting asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infections. J. Clin. Microbiol. 37(4), 976-980 (1999).
27. Skidmore S, Horner P, Herring A et al. Vulvovaginal-swab or first-catch urine specimen to detect Chlamydia trachomatis in women in a community setting? J. Clin. Microbiol. 44(12), 4389-4394 (2006).
28. Shafer MA, Moncada J, Boyer CB, Betsinger K, Flinn SD, Schachter J. Comparing first-void urine specimens, self-collected vaginal swabs, and endocervical specimens to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae by a nucleic acid amplification test. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41(9), 4395-4399 (2003).
29. Gaydos CA, Rompalo AM. The use of urine and self-obtained vaginal swabs for the diagnosis of sexually transmitted diseases. Curr. Infect. Dis. Rep. 4(2), 148-157 (2002).
30. Gaydos CA, Rizzo-Price PA, Barnes M, Dwyer K, Wood BJ, Hogan MT. The use of focus groups to design an internet-based program for chlamydia screening with self-administered vaginal swabs: what women want. Sex. Health 3(4), 209-215 (2006).
31. Graseck AS, Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Madden T, Peipert JF. Randomized trial of home versus clinic-based screening for sexually transmitted infections. Obstet. Gynecol. 83(7), 552-557 (2010). Most recent randomized controlled trial to evaluate home versus clinic sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening in US women. Screening rates were higher among home testers than clinic testers.
32. Chernesky MA, Hook EW 3rd, Martin DH et al. Women find it easy and prefer to collect their own vaginal swabs to diagnose Chlamydia trachomatis or Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections. Sex. Transm. Dis. 32(12), 729-733 (2005).
33. Graseck AS, Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Madden T, Peipert JF. Home screening compared with clinic-based screening for sexually transmitted infections. Obstet. Gynecol. 115(4), 745-752 (2010). Observational study conducted in the US demonstrated that women strongly preferred home-based STI screening when given the option, and that home test kits improved test completion rates.
34. Brabin L, Thomas G, Hopkins M, O'Brien K, Roberts SA. Delivery of chlamydia screening to young women requesting emergency hormonal contraception at pharmacies in Manchester, UK: a prospective study. BMC Womens Health 9, 7 (2009).
35. Cook RL, Ostergaard L, Hillier SL et al. Home screening for sexually transmitted diseases in high-risk young women: randomised controlled trial. Sex. Transm. Infect. 83(4), 286-291 (2007).
36. Smith KJ, Cook RL, Ness RB. Cost comparisons between home- and clinic-based testing for sexually transmitted diseases in high-risk young women. Infect. Dis. Obstet. Gynecol. 2007, 62467 (2007).
37. Senok A, Wilson P, Reid M et al. Can we evaluate population screening strategies in UK general practice? A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing postal and opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 59(3), 198-204 (2005).
38. Lippman SA, Jones HE, Luppi CG, Pinho AA, Veras MA, van de Wijgert JH. Home-based self-sampling and self-testing for sexually transmitted infections: acceptable and feasible alternatives to provider-based screening in low-income women in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Sex. Transm. Dis. 34(7), 421-428 (2007).
39. Jones HE, Altini L, de Kock A, Young T, van de Wijgert JH. Home-based versus clinic-based self-sampling and testing for sexually transmitted infections in Gugulethu, South Africa: randomised controlled trial. Sex. Transm. Infect. 83(7), 552-557 (2007).
40. Bauer HM, Chartier M, Kessell E et al. Chlamydia screening of youth and young adults in non-clinical settings throughout California. Sex. Transm. Dis. 31(7), 409-414 (2004).
41. Bloomfield PJ, Kent C, Campbell D, Hanbrook L, Klausner JD. Community-based chlamydia and gonorrhea screening through the United States mail, San Francisco. Sex. Transm. Dis. 29(5), 294-297 (2002).
42. Holland-Hall CM, Wiesenfeld HC, Murray PJ. Self-collected vaginal swabs for the detection of multiple sexually transmitted infections in adolescent girls. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol. 15(5), 307-313 (2002).
43. Williamson LM, Scott G, Carrick-Anderson K, Kernaghan K, Hart GJ. Chlamydia trachomatis testing among 13-25-year-olds in non-genitourinary medicine settings. J. Fam. Plann. Reprod. Health Care 33(3), 177-182 (2007).
44. Cherry DK, Woodwell DA, Rechtsteiner EA. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2005 summary. Adv. Data 387, 1-39 (2007).
45. Ostergaard L, Andersen B, Olesen F, Moller JK. Efficacy of home sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis: randomised study. Br. Med. J. 317(7150), 26-27 (1998). First randomized controlled trial of home- compared with clinic-based STI screening in young men and women, conducted in Denmark. Home screening achieved much higher screening rates than traditional office screening.
46. Ostergaard L, Andersen B, Moller JK, Olesen F. Home sampling versus conventional swab sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis in women: a cluster-randomized 1-year follow-up study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 31(4), 951-957 (2000).
47. Andersen B, Olesen F, Moller JK, Ostergaard L. Population-based strategies for outreach screening of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: a randomized, controlled trial. J. Infect. Dis. 185(2), 252-258 (2002). To date, this is the largest population-based randomized controlled trial comparing home screening with usual clinic care in Danish young men and women.
48. Scholes D, Heidrich FE, Yarbro P, Lindenbaum JE, Marrazzo JM. Population-based outreach for Chlamydia screening in men: results from a randomized trial. Sex. Transm. Dis. 34(11), 837-839 (2007). The largest US randomized controlled trial that found home-based STI screening to be more effective than usual clinic care in men.
49. van Bergen J, Gotz HM, Richardus JH, Hoebe CJ, Broer J, Coenen AJ. Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanisation and suggests targeted screening approaches: results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands. Sex. Transm. Infect. 81(1), 17-23 (2005).
50. van Bergen J, Gotz H, Richardus JH, Hoebe C, Broer J, Coenen T. Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in The Netherlands suggests selective screening approaches. Results from the PILOT CT Population Study. Drugs Today (Barc.) 42(Suppl. A), 25-33 (2006).
51. Gotz HM, van Bergen JE, Veldhuijzen IK et al. Lessons learned from a populationbased chlamydia screening pilot. Int. J. STD AIDS 17(12), 826-830 (2006).
52. de Vries R, van Bergen JE, de Jong-van den Berg LT, Postma MJ. Systematic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: estimating cost-effectiveness using dynamic modeling and Dutch data. Value Health 9(1), 1-11 (2006).
53. Macleod J, Salisbury C, Low N et al. Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study. Br. Med. J. 330(7497), 940 (2005).
54. Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J et al. The chlamydia screening studies: rationale and design. Sex. Transm. Infect. 80(5), 342-348 (2004).
55. Klausner JD. Websites and STD services. Sex. Transm. Dis. 26(9), 548 (1999).
56. Gaydos CA, Barnes M, Aumakhan B et al. Can e-technology through the internet be used as a new tool to address the Chlamydia trachomatis epidemic by home sampling and vaginal swabs? Sex. Transm. Dis. 36(9), 577-580 (2009).
57. Gaydos CA, Dwyer K, Barnes M et al. Internet-based screening for Chlamydia trachomatis to reach non-clinic populations with mailed self-administered vaginal swabs. Sex. Transm. Dis. 33(7), 451-457 (2006). One of the first studies to evaluate home screening implemented through internet-based recruitment approaches.
58. Chai SJ, Aumakhan B, Barnes M et al. Internet-based screening for sexually transmitted infections to reach nonclinic populations in the community: risk factors for infection in men. Sex. Transm. Dis. 37(12), 756-763 (2010).
59. Novak DP, Karlsson RB. Simplifying chlamydia testing: an innovative Chlamydia trachomatis testing approach using the internet and a home sampling strategy: population based study. Sex. Transm. Infect. 82(2), 142-147; discussion 152-143 (2006).
60. van den Broek IV, Hoebe CJ, van Bergen JE et al. Evaluation design of a systematic, selective, internet-based, Chlamydia screening implementation in The Netherlands, 2008-2010: implications of first results for the analysis. BMC Infect. Dis. 10, 89 (2010).
61. Martin L, Freedman E, Burton L et al. The C-project: use of self-collection kits to screen for Chlamydia trachomatis in young people in a community-based health promotion project. Sex. Health 6(2), 157-162 (2009).
62. Whittington WL, Kent C, Kissinger P et al. Determinants of persistent and recurrent Chlamydia trachomatis infection in young women: results of a multicenter cohort study. Sex. Transm. Dis. 28(2), 117-123 (2001).
63. Kjaer HO, Dimcevski G, Hoff G, Olesen F, Ostergaard L. Recurrence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection evaluated by mailed samples obtained at home: 24 weeks' prospective follow up study. Sex. Transm. Infect. 76(3), 169-172 (2000).
64. Niccolai LM, Hochberg AL, Ethier KA, Lewis JB, Ickovics JR. Burden of recurrent Chlamydia trachomatis infections in young women: further uncovering the 'hidden epidemic'. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 161(3), 246-251 (2007).
65. Newman LM, Warner L, Weinstock HS. Predicting subsequent infection in patients attending sexually transmitted disease clinics. Sex. Transm. Dis. 33(12), 737-742 (2006).
66. Apoola A, Beardsley J. Does the addition of a urine testing kit to use of contact slips increase the partner notification rates for genital chlamydial infection? Int. J. STD AIDS 20(11), 775-777 (2009).
67. Cameron ST, Glasier A, Scott G et al. Novel interventions to reduce re-infection in women with chlamydia: a randomized controlled trial. Hum. Reprod. 24(4), 888-895 (2009).
68. Ostergaard L, Andersen B, Moller JK, Olesen F, Worm AM. Managing partners of people diagnosed with Chlamydia trachomatis: a comparison of two partner testing methods. Sex. Transm. Infect. 79(5), 358-361 (2003). Home-based screening was shown to be more effective at improving partner testing rates than traditional partner notification methods.
69. Owens SL, Arora N, Quinn N, Peeling RW, Holmes KK, Gaydos CA. Utilising the internet to test for sexually transmitted infections: results of a survey and accuracy testing. Sex. Transm. Infect. 86(2), 112-116 (2010).
70. Michel CE, Saison FG, Joshi H, Mahilum-Tapay LM, Lee HH. Pitfalls of internet-accessible diagnostic tests: inadequate performance of a CE-marked Chlamydia test for home use. Sex. Transm. Infect. 85(3), 187-189 (2009).
71. Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Flottemesch TJ, Goodman MJ, Solberg LI. Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis. Am. J. Prev. Med. 31(1), 52-61 (2006).
72. United States Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Chlamydial Infection: Summary of Recommendations and Evidence, June 2007 www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspschlm.htm (Accessed 18 November 2010)
73. Fox S, Jones S. The Social Life of Health Information. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2009 http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/8-The-Social- Life-of-Health-Information.aspx (Accessed 18 November 2010)
74. FDA Questions Drug Store Tests for Sexually Transmitted Diseases http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/f-d-a-questions-drug-store- tests-for-sexually-transmitted-diseases/