The role of syphilis self-testing as an additional syphilis testing approach in key populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.


Journal

The Lancet. Public health
ISSN: 2468-2667
Titre abrégé: Lancet Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101699003

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2023
Historique:
received: 07 02 2023
revised: 16 06 2023
accepted: 19 06 2023
medline: 28 8 2023
pubmed: 24 7 2023
entrez: 23 7 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Syphilis is causing epidemics in many countries. Syphilis self-testing (SST) has potential to increase testing and treatment coverage in the same manner as documented for self-testing of, for example, HIV, hepatitis C virus, and COVID-19. We aimed to synthesise current evidence on the utility of SST. We conducted a systematic review and, where possible, meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science for publications published from Jan 1, 2000, to Oct 13, 2022. We included publications with original data on any syphilis rapid tests, including dual HIV-syphilis tests. Study populations were not restricted. We used random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the pooled proportion of people offered SST who undertook the test. The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022302129). In total, 40 499 citations were identified. 11 publications from seven studies from the USA, Zimbabwe, and China met eligibility criteria. Of those, four studies reported data from men who have sex with men and five studies used dual HIV-SST. Using data from one randomised controlled trial and three observational studies, the pooled proportion of people who received SST kits who undertook the test was 88% (95% CI 85-91). No studies provided data on the sensitivity or specificity of SST. Overall, user and provider preference for SST was high, with participants reporting convenience, privacy, rapid results, autonomy, trust in blood-based tests, decreased facility contact, and time savings, with individuals being able to correctly self-test. Publications from China reported that SST had lower costs per person tested than existing facility-based testing options. Our review builds on the literature for self-testing across different disease areas and demonstrates that SST has the potential to reach underserved populations. As this review found that SST use was acceptable and feasible to implement, SST can be used as an additional syphilis testing approach. Since no data on the sensitivity and specificity of SST were found, further implementation research will be required to guide the best strategies for SST service delivery and future scale-up. WHO, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and Unitaid.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Syphilis is causing epidemics in many countries. Syphilis self-testing (SST) has potential to increase testing and treatment coverage in the same manner as documented for self-testing of, for example, HIV, hepatitis C virus, and COVID-19. We aimed to synthesise current evidence on the utility of SST.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and, where possible, meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science for publications published from Jan 1, 2000, to Oct 13, 2022. We included publications with original data on any syphilis rapid tests, including dual HIV-syphilis tests. Study populations were not restricted. We used random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the pooled proportion of people offered SST who undertook the test. The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022302129).
FINDINGS
In total, 40 499 citations were identified. 11 publications from seven studies from the USA, Zimbabwe, and China met eligibility criteria. Of those, four studies reported data from men who have sex with men and five studies used dual HIV-SST. Using data from one randomised controlled trial and three observational studies, the pooled proportion of people who received SST kits who undertook the test was 88% (95% CI 85-91). No studies provided data on the sensitivity or specificity of SST. Overall, user and provider preference for SST was high, with participants reporting convenience, privacy, rapid results, autonomy, trust in blood-based tests, decreased facility contact, and time savings, with individuals being able to correctly self-test. Publications from China reported that SST had lower costs per person tested than existing facility-based testing options.
INTERPRETATION
Our review builds on the literature for self-testing across different disease areas and demonstrates that SST has the potential to reach underserved populations. As this review found that SST use was acceptable and feasible to implement, SST can be used as an additional syphilis testing approach. Since no data on the sensitivity and specificity of SST were found, further implementation research will be required to guide the best strategies for SST service delivery and future scale-up.
FUNDING
WHO, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and Unitaid.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37482070
pii: S2468-2667(23)00128-7
doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00128-7
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Meta-Analysis Systematic Review Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e726-e734

Subventions

Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of interests JJO has received research funding to their institution from Gilead, outside of the submitted work. EPFC has received research funding to their institution from Merck and Seqirus, outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Auteurs

Janet M Towns (JM)

Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Central Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.

Warittha Tieosapjaroen (W)

Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Central Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.

Maeve B Mello (MB)

Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Rachel C Baggaley (RC)

Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Cheryl C Johnson (CC)

Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Muhammad S Jamil (MS)

Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Jane Rowley (J)

Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Magdalena Barr-DiChiara (M)

Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Fern Terris-Prestholt (F)

UNAIDS, Geneva, Switzerland.

Marcus Y Chen (MY)

Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Central Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.

Eric P F Chow (EPF)

Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Central Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Christopher K Fairley (CK)

Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Central Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.

Lei Zhang (L)

Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Central Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.

Jason J Ong (JJ)

Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Central Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Electronic address: jason.ong@monash.edu.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH