Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#208 Vaginal Self Swabs – Simple and Sensitive for STIs


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
What is the most sensitive way to test for chlamydia and gonorrhea?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
Self-collected vaginal swabs (SCVSappear more sensitive in diagnosing chlamydia and gonorrhea than health professional collected endocervical swabs and first catch urine (FCU). Endocervical swabs and FCU testing may miss up to 10% of STIs in womenSCVS (when pelvic exam not required) is recommended in women and FCU in men.



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
  • SCVS versuendocervical swab: 
    • 3,973 women (with and without symptoms) in sexual health centre had SCVS followed by physician endocervical swab:1 
      • SCVS statistically significantly increased sensitivity: 97% versus 88%. 
        • Endocervical swab missed 1 in 11 cases of chlamydia. 
    • SCVS and endocervical swabs had similar sensitivities (99% and 96%) for gonorrhea.2 
  • SCVS versus FCU and/or endocervical swab: 
    • 1,464 symptomatic and asymptomatic women aprimary/secondary care clinics, all collected SCVSphysician vaginal, or endocervical swabs and FCU.3 
      • Physician and SCVS: Similar sensitivity (>95%) for gonorrhea and chlamydia. 
      • SCVS versus FCU: SCVS identified statistically significantly more patients with chlamydia (196 versus 171).  
    • 318 women (172 with chlamydia):4 
      • FCU had statistically significant lower sensitivity (88%) compared to endocervical and SCVS (~97%).
    • 1,654 men and women (164 with chlamydia):5 
      • Endocervical swab statistically significantly more sensitive (99%) than FCU (85%). 
        • SCVS (95%) not different than either. 
      • In men, no significant difference between urethral swab or FCU. 
  • Systematic review (21 studies) reported no difference in sensitivity of FCU (87%) versus SCVS (92%).6 
    • Limitations: Compared to endocervical specimens, which are not 100% sensitive.6  
Context: 
  • No gold standard for chlamydia and gonorrhoea detection, limiting evaluation of new diagnostic tests.7  
  • Combination swab specificities in above studies were consistently 99-100%.1-3 
  • Patients find SCVS “easy” to perform (88%) and prefer home completion.8 
  • Patients randomized to home testing (swabs mailed to their home) are twice as likely to complete the test (~60% versus 30%).9,10  
  • Nucleic acid amplification test swab is recommended. Specimens can be stored at room temperature and must be processed <60 days of collection. 
  • Guidelines recommend:11  
    • SCVS when a pelvic exam is not otherwise indicated. 
    • FCU for men. 


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#367 Oral Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Antagonists: A painfully long name for the acute treatment of migraines

What are the risks and benefits of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of episodic migraines?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#366 Looking for Closure: Managing simple excisions or wounds efficiently

What are some options for efficiency in wound closure?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#365 Shrooms for Glooms: Evidence for psilocybin for depression

What are the benefits and harms of psilocybin for treatment-resistant/recurrent depression?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Christina Korownyk MD CCFP
  • Michael R Kolber BSc MD CCFP MSc

1. Schoeman SA, Stewart CM, Booth RA, et al. BMJ. 2012 Dec 12; 345:e8013.

2. Stewart CM, Schoeman SA, Booth RA, et al. BMJ. 2012 Dec 12; 345:e8107.

3. Schachter J, Chernesky MA, Willis DE, et al. Sex Transm Dis. 2005 Dec; 32(12):725-8.

4. Falk L, Coble BI, Mjörnberg PA, et al. Int J STD AIDS. 2010 Apr; 21(4):283-7.

5. Michel CE, Sonnex C, Carne CA, et al. J Clin Microbiol. 2007 May; 45(5):1395-402.

6. Lunny C, Taylor D, Hoang L, et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 13; 10(7):e0132776.

7. Miller WC. Epidemiology. 2012 Jan; 23(1):83-5.

8. Paudyal P, Llewellyn C, Lau J, et al. PLoS One. 2015 Apr 24; 10(4):e0124310.

9. Wilson E, Free C, Morris TP, et al. PLoS Med. 2017 Dec 27; 14(12):e1002479.

10. Graseck AS, Secura GM, Allsworth JE, et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Apr; 115(4):745-52.

11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2014 Mar 14; 63(RR-02):1-19.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.