Decision Analysis: Point-of-care Chlamydia Testing vs. Laboratory-based Methods

Abstract

OBJECTIVETo evaluate and compare the performance of several different methods available for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) infection, and to explore possible testing and treatment strategies incorporating point-of-care testing versus laboratory-based tests. RESULTSPerforming a rapid in-clinic test on women who did not meet empiric treatment criteria would have increased the overall proportion of infected persons receiving same-day treatment from 48.6% to 79.1% using DFA or 78.4% using OIA. CONCLUSIONSUse of empiric treatment criteria and same-day point-of-care testing for patients not meeting the empiric treatment threshold appears to be an appropriate, useful, and cost-effective strategy for increasing same-day treatment of Ct infections in this population.

Point-of-care tests for sexually transmissible infections: what do ‘end users' want?

“…7 Even if patients are tested, however, current diagnostic approaches rely on laboratory testing with turnaround times of 2–14 days, which can result in low rates of patient return for test results and consequent treatment. 8,9 Although rapid POCTs for STIs have been available for over a decade, they have not been accurate, were difficult to interpret or were too costly. 10 …”

Acceptability of Self-Testing for Trichomoniasis Increases with Experience

“…Others have examined strategies such as selfcollection (non-invasive samples) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and point-of-care (POC) tests to improve the diagnosis of STIs. [9][10][11][12] Self-collection may be advantageous for women who dislike pelvic examinations or in settings where providers cannot perform pelvic examinations. POC diagnostic STI tests are advocated to increase accurate and timely treatment of infections.…”

Near-patient testing will improve the control of sexually transmitted infections: the arguments in favour

“…It would almost certainly be necessary for positive results to be confirmed by a second, different test; however, this does suggest that in UK populations at high risk for syphilis, there may be merit in the use of a syphilis POCT for screening work. 13 Clearly, this does not mean that similarly sensitive tests can easily be developed for other STIs; however, it does illustrate the pace of technological progress, and increases the likelihood of the benefits of technological advance being felt in other parts of the STI field in the future.…”