Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Improved sensitivity from pooled urine, pharyngeal and rectal specimens when using a molecular assay for the detection of chlamydia and gonorrhoea near point of care
  1. Judith Ann Dean1,
  2. Sara Fiona Elizabeth Bell1,
  3. Luke Coffey2,
  4. Joseph Debattista3,
  5. Steven Badman4,
  6. Andrew M Redmond2,5,
  7. David M Whiley6,7,
  8. Jime Lemoire2,
  9. Owain David Williams1,
  10. Chris Howard2,
  11. Charles F Gilks1
  1. 1School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2RAPID, Queensland Positive People, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  3. 3Metro North Public Health Unit, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Windsor, Queensland, Australia
  4. 4The Kirby Insitute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  5. 5Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Herston, Queensland, Australia
  6. 6Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia
  7. 7Pathology Queensland, Queensland Health, Herston, Queensland, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Judith Ann Dean, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia; j.dean4{at}uq.edu.au

Statistics from Altmetric.com

For populations at risk of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG), regular testing of multiple anatomical sites is recommended. Pooling methods that combine one patient’s anatomical site specimens can reduce cost and workflow burdens.1 2 The feasibility of such methods within a community setting is well established3 4; however, sensitivities of pooling are inferior to methodologies that test anatomical sites separately.1 5 Our group sought to improve pooling performance near the point of care within a peer-led, community-based STI testing service.

Adapting a protocol described by Speers et al,5 we previously reported3 sensitivities of 90% (95% CI 77.4% to 96.3%) and 89.7% (95% CI 74.8% to 96.7%) for the pooled detection of CT and NG, respectively, when using the Xpert CT/NG assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, California, USA). The Xpert CT/NG assay has not been listed by any regulatory body …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Anna Maria Geretti

  • Contributors JAD authored the manuscript with SFEB, LC and JD. All authors contributed to methodology formation, data analysis and the final manuscript.

  • Funding This study was conducted with support and under the auspices of the Queensland Professorial Chair in blood-borne virus (BBV) and STI. Cepheid provided funding and in-kind support under an Independent Research Support Agreement for phase II of the study.

  • Competing interests DMW reports research funding from SpeeDx Pty Ltd.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval This study was approved by The University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee in February 2017 (UQHREC 2016001764) and notified to the Therapeutic Goods Administration in March 2017 (CT-2017-CTN00812-1).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.