Cargando…

Self-sampling strategies (with/without digital innovations) in populations at risk of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: a systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) resulted in over 200 million new sexually transmitted infections last year. Self-sampling strategies alone or combined with digital innovations (ie, online, mobile or computing technologies supporting self-sampling) could improve...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vialard, Fiorella, Anand, Apoorva, Leung Soo, Cindy, de Waal, Anna, McGuire, Madison, Carmona, Sergio, Fernández-Suárez, Marta, Zwerling, Alice Anne, Pant Pai, Nitika
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10447399/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36990696
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2022-055557
_version_ 1785094543232729088
author Vialard, Fiorella
Anand, Apoorva
Leung Soo, Cindy
de Waal, Anna
McGuire, Madison
Carmona, Sergio
Fernández-Suárez, Marta
Zwerling, Alice Anne
Pant Pai, Nitika
author_facet Vialard, Fiorella
Anand, Apoorva
Leung Soo, Cindy
de Waal, Anna
McGuire, Madison
Carmona, Sergio
Fernández-Suárez, Marta
Zwerling, Alice Anne
Pant Pai, Nitika
author_sort Vialard, Fiorella
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) resulted in over 200 million new sexually transmitted infections last year. Self-sampling strategies alone or combined with digital innovations (ie, online, mobile or computing technologies supporting self-sampling) could improve screening methods. Evidence on all outcomes has not yet been synthesised, so we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address this limitation. METHODS: We searched three databases (period: 1 January 2000–6 January 2023) for reports on self-sampling for CT/GC testing. Outcomes considered for inclusion were: accuracy, feasibility, patient-centred and impact (ie, changes in linkage to care, first-time testers, uptake, turnaround time or referrals attributable to self-sampling). We used bivariate regression models to meta-analyse accuracy measures from self-sampled CT/GC tests and obtain pooled sensitivity/specificity estimates. We assessed quality with Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool-2, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. RESULTS: We summarised results from 45 studies reporting self-sampling alone (73.3%; 33 of 45) or combined with digital innovations (26.7%; 12 of 45) conducted in 10 high-income (HICs; n=34) and 8 low/middle-income countries (LMICs; n=11). 95.6% (43 of 45) were observational, while 4.4% (2 of 45) were randomised clinical trials. We noted that pooled sensitivity (n=13) for CT/GC was higher in extragenital self-sampling (>91.6% (86.0%–95.1%)) than in vaginal self-sampling (79.6% (62.1%–90.3%)), while pooled specificity remained high (>99.0% (98.2%–99.5%)). Participants found self-sampling highly acceptable (80.0%–100.0%; n=24), but preference varied (23.1%–83.0%; n=16). Self-sampling reached 51.0%–70.0% (n=3) of first-time testers and resulted in 89.0%–100.0% (n=3) linkages to care. Digital innovations led to 65.0%–92% engagement and 43.8%–57.1% kit return rates (n=3). Quality of studies varied. DISCUSSION: Self-sampling had mixed sensitivity, reached first-time testers and was accepted with high linkages to care. We recommend self-sampling for CT/GC in HICs but additional evaluations in LMICs. Digital innovations impacted engagement and may reduce disease burden in hard-to-reach populations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021262950.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10447399
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104473992023-08-25 Self-sampling strategies (with/without digital innovations) in populations at risk of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: a systematic review and meta-analyses Vialard, Fiorella Anand, Apoorva Leung Soo, Cindy de Waal, Anna McGuire, Madison Carmona, Sergio Fernández-Suárez, Marta Zwerling, Alice Anne Pant Pai, Nitika Sex Transm Infect Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) resulted in over 200 million new sexually transmitted infections last year. Self-sampling strategies alone or combined with digital innovations (ie, online, mobile or computing technologies supporting self-sampling) could improve screening methods. Evidence on all outcomes has not yet been synthesised, so we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address this limitation. METHODS: We searched three databases (period: 1 January 2000–6 January 2023) for reports on self-sampling for CT/GC testing. Outcomes considered for inclusion were: accuracy, feasibility, patient-centred and impact (ie, changes in linkage to care, first-time testers, uptake, turnaround time or referrals attributable to self-sampling). We used bivariate regression models to meta-analyse accuracy measures from self-sampled CT/GC tests and obtain pooled sensitivity/specificity estimates. We assessed quality with Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool-2, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. RESULTS: We summarised results from 45 studies reporting self-sampling alone (73.3%; 33 of 45) or combined with digital innovations (26.7%; 12 of 45) conducted in 10 high-income (HICs; n=34) and 8 low/middle-income countries (LMICs; n=11). 95.6% (43 of 45) were observational, while 4.4% (2 of 45) were randomised clinical trials. We noted that pooled sensitivity (n=13) for CT/GC was higher in extragenital self-sampling (>91.6% (86.0%–95.1%)) than in vaginal self-sampling (79.6% (62.1%–90.3%)), while pooled specificity remained high (>99.0% (98.2%–99.5%)). Participants found self-sampling highly acceptable (80.0%–100.0%; n=24), but preference varied (23.1%–83.0%; n=16). Self-sampling reached 51.0%–70.0% (n=3) of first-time testers and resulted in 89.0%–100.0% (n=3) linkages to care. Digital innovations led to 65.0%–92% engagement and 43.8%–57.1% kit return rates (n=3). Quality of studies varied. DISCUSSION: Self-sampling had mixed sensitivity, reached first-time testers and was accepted with high linkages to care. We recommend self-sampling for CT/GC in HICs but additional evaluations in LMICs. Digital innovations impacted engagement and may reduce disease burden in hard-to-reach populations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021262950. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-09 2023-03-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10447399/ /pubmed/36990696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2022-055557 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Vialard, Fiorella
Anand, Apoorva
Leung Soo, Cindy
de Waal, Anna
McGuire, Madison
Carmona, Sergio
Fernández-Suárez, Marta
Zwerling, Alice Anne
Pant Pai, Nitika
Self-sampling strategies (with/without digital innovations) in populations at risk of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: a systematic review and meta-analyses
title Self-sampling strategies (with/without digital innovations) in populations at risk of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: a systematic review and meta-analyses
title_full Self-sampling strategies (with/without digital innovations) in populations at risk of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: a systematic review and meta-analyses
title_fullStr Self-sampling strategies (with/without digital innovations) in populations at risk of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: a systematic review and meta-analyses
title_full_unstemmed Self-sampling strategies (with/without digital innovations) in populations at risk of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: a systematic review and meta-analyses
title_short Self-sampling strategies (with/without digital innovations) in populations at risk of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: a systematic review and meta-analyses
title_sort self-sampling strategies (with/without digital innovations) in populations at risk of chlamydia trachomatis and neisseria gonorrhoeae: a systematic review and meta-analyses
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10447399/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36990696
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2022-055557
work_keys_str_mv AT vialardfiorella selfsamplingstrategieswithwithoutdigitalinnovationsinpopulationsatriskofchlamydiatrachomatisandneisseriagonorrhoeaeasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT anandapoorva selfsamplingstrategieswithwithoutdigitalinnovationsinpopulationsatriskofchlamydiatrachomatisandneisseriagonorrhoeaeasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT leungsoocindy selfsamplingstrategieswithwithoutdigitalinnovationsinpopulationsatriskofchlamydiatrachomatisandneisseriagonorrhoeaeasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT dewaalanna selfsamplingstrategieswithwithoutdigitalinnovationsinpopulationsatriskofchlamydiatrachomatisandneisseriagonorrhoeaeasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT mcguiremadison selfsamplingstrategieswithwithoutdigitalinnovationsinpopulationsatriskofchlamydiatrachomatisandneisseriagonorrhoeaeasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT carmonasergio selfsamplingstrategieswithwithoutdigitalinnovationsinpopulationsatriskofchlamydiatrachomatisandneisseriagonorrhoeaeasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT fernandezsuarezmarta selfsamplingstrategieswithwithoutdigitalinnovationsinpopulationsatriskofchlamydiatrachomatisandneisseriagonorrhoeaeasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT zwerlingaliceanne selfsamplingstrategieswithwithoutdigitalinnovationsinpopulationsatriskofchlamydiatrachomatisandneisseriagonorrhoeaeasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT pantpainitika selfsamplingstrategieswithwithoutdigitalinnovationsinpopulationsatriskofchlamydiatrachomatisandneisseriagonorrhoeaeasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses