Screening for gonorrhoea using samples collected through the English national chlamydia screening programme and risk of false positives: a national survey of local authorities.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate use of dual tests for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae on samples collected through the National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) in England. DESIGN AND SETTING: During May-July 2013, we delivered an online survey to commissioners of sexual health services in the 152 upper-tier English Local Authorities (LAs) who were responsible for commissioning chlamydia screening in people aged 15-24 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) The proportion of English LAs using dual tests on samples collected by the NCSP; (2) The estimated number of gonorrhoea tests and false positives from samples collected by the NCSP, calculated using national surveillance data on the number of chlamydia tests performed, assuming the gonorrhoea prevalence to range between 0.1% and 1%, and test sensitivity and specificity of 99.5%. RESULTS: 64% (98/152) of LAs responded to this national survey; over half (53% (52/98)) reported currently using dual tests in community settings. There was no significant difference between LAs using and not using dual tests by chlamydia positivity, chlamydia diagnosis rate or population screening coverage. Although positive gonorrhoea results were confirmed with supplementary tests in 93% (38/41) of LAs, this occurred after patients were notified about the initial positive result in 63% (26/41). Approximately 450-4500 confirmed gonorrhoea diagnoses and 2300 false-positive screens might occur through use of dual tests on NCSP samples each year. Under reasonable assumptions, the positive predictive value of the screening test is 17-67%. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of English LAs already commission dual tests for samples collected by the NCSP. Gonorrhoea screening has been introduced alongside chlamydia screening in many low prevalence settings without a national evidence review or change of policy. We question the public health benefit here, and suggest that robust testing algorithms and clinical management pathways, together with rigorous evaluation, be implemented wherever dual tests are deployed.