Search

Background: The prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is at an all-time high. Direct-to-consumer STI testing services may help alleviate this undue health burden. These products are sold online and rarely require interaction with a health care professional (HCP). Vendors offer STI self-collection kits or prescriptions for HCP specimen collection. The objective was to understand the scope of direct-to-consumer STI testing services offered and provide recommendations for consumers and industry., Methods: Seven volunteers searched for "STD tests" on Google from February 1 through March 31, 2021 and shared their top 3 results. The study team extracted data from consumer-facing information on each website. Descriptive statistics and thematic qualitative analyses were performed., Results: Twenty vendors were identified. Most vendors (95%) used Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified or College of American Pathologists (CAP) accredited laboratories. Analyses distinguished between STI self-collection kits (n = 9) using independent laboratories and HCP specimen collection (n = 10), which used commercial laboratories (n = 1 offered both). The STI self-collection kits were cheaper per test and bundle on average (eg, $79.00 vs. $106.50 for chlamydia/gonorrhea), and more closely aligned with clinical recommendations compared with the HCP specimen collection options. Websites often contained inaccurate or misleading information (n = 13), often promoting testing outside of the recommendations., Conclusions: Direct-to-consumer STI testing services are part of an emerging market lacking regulation. Consumers should select vendors offering prescriptions for HCP specimen collection at CAP accredited and CLIA-certified laboratories. Vendors should provide a screening tool to assess individual patient risk prior to test purchase., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: C.E. and E.M. have no conflicts of interest to disclose. C.N.P. reports receiving consulting or speaking honorarium from the following: BD and Roche. B.V.d.P. reports receiving grants to her institution, consulting or speaking honorarium from the following: Abbott, Applied BioCode, BD, BioFIre, Cepheid, Hologic, PrevenTx, and Roche., (Copyright © 2023 American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest and Sources of Funding: None declared.

Abstract: The American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association has, for several years, been conducting a cross-sector workshop to bring together a variety of stakeholders to develop ideas for collaboratively improving the sexually transmitted infection control efforts in the United States. In this summary, we share the content of discussions and ideas of the fourth annual workshop for future research and potential changes to practice with a focus on diagnostic capacity., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest and Sources of Funding: Funding support for the workshop was received by ASTDA from Abbott Molecular, BD Diagnostics, BioFire Diagnostics, Hologic, Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute, Roche Molecular, and SpeeDx. Authors from several of those entities contributed to the preparation of this manuscript. All other authors declare no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association.)

Large US colleges and universities that re-opened campuses in the fall of 2020 and the spring of 2021 experienced high per capita rates of COVID-19. Returns to campus were controversial because they posed a potential risk to surrounding communities. A large university in Pennsylvania that returned to in-person instruction for Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 semesters reported high incidence of COVID-19 among students. However, the co-located non-student resident population in the county experienced fewer COVID-19 cases per capita than reported in neighboring counties. Activity patterns from mobile devices indicate that the non-student resident population near the university restricted their movements during the pandemic more than residents of neighboring counties. Respiratory virus prevention and management in student and non-student populations requires different, specifically targeted strategies., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Abstract: Direct-to-consumer test services have gained popularity for sexually transmitted infections in recent years, with substantially increased use as a result of the SARS-CoV-2 (CoVID-19) global pandemic. This method of access has been variously known as "self-testing," "home testing," and "direct access testing." Although these online services may be offered through different mechanisms, here we focus on those that are consumer-driven and require self-collected samples, and sample shipment to a centralized laboratory without involvement of health care providers and/or local health departments. We provide the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association's position on utilization of these services and recommendations for both consumers and health care providers., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: C.E., B.M., and S.B.G. have nothing to disclose. C.N.P. reports receiving honorarium/consulting fees paid directly to her by Becton Dickinson. A.M.G. reports receiving funding to her institution from Abbott, BD, Cepheid, DiaSorin, IDEXX, Illumina, Hologic, Luminex, National Jewish Health, Roche, SpeeDx, ThermoFisher Scientific, and Qiagen. B.V.D.P. reports receiving funding to her institution from Abbott, Becton Dickinson, binx health, Cepheid, Hologic, Rheonix, Roche, and SpeeDx, and honorarium/consulting fees paid directly to her from Abbott, BD, and Roche., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association.)