Acceptability and efficacy of vaginal self-sampling for genital infection and bacterial vaginosis: A large, cross-sectional, non-inferiority trial

Objective: Screening for genital infection (GI), bacterial vaginosis (BV), sexually transmitted infection (STI) and asymptomatic carriage of group B streptococcus (GBS) in pregnant women is a common reason for medical appointments. Objectives were first to determine the non-inferiority of vaginal self-sampling compared with vaginal/cervical classical sampling to screen for GIs, bacterial vaginosis (BV), STIs, and GBS asymptomatic carriage in pregnant women; second to determine the feasibility of vaginal self-sampling. Methods: Vaginal self-sampling (VSS) and vaginal/cervical classical sampling (VCS) of 1027 women were collected by health care professionals and simultaneously carried out on each patient. Bacterial infection, yeast infection, Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoea, Mycoplasma genitalium, Trichomonas vaginalis and Herpes simplex virus types were systematically screened in both paired VSS and VCS samples. Results: Statistical tests supported the non-inferiority of VSS compared with VCS. Agreements between VCS and VSS remained high regardless of the type of studied infection. VSS had successful diagnostic performances, especially for Predictive negative value (PNV) (over 90%) for all studied infections. Most participants (84%) recommended the use of VSS. Conclusions: This study remains the most exhaustive in screening for GI, BV, STI agents and asymptomatic GBS carriage. Given its efficacy and acceptability, VSS seems to be a viable alternative to classic physician sampling among women in the general population. This study provides evidence that vaginal self-sampling can be used as a universal specimen for detection of lower genital tract infections in women.

financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted 48 work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to 49 have influenced the submitted work. 50 51 TRANSPARENCY DECLARATION: The manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent 52 account of the study being reported. No important aspects of the study have been omitted; 53 and any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. 54 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249269 doi: medRxiv preprint Screening for genital infection (GI), bacterial vaginosis (BV), sexually transmitted infection 81 (STI) and asymptomatic carriage of group B streptococcus (GBS) in pregnant women is a 82 common reason for medical appointments. GI including bacterial vaginosis and yeast 83 colonization are the most common lower genital tract disorders among women of 84 reproductive age 1,2 . STIs are a major public health concern, with Chlamydia trachomatis 85 (CT), Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) and genital herpes (Human simplex virus, HSV) the most 86 prevalent STI and Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) an emerging sexually transmitted pathogen 87 3,4 . The diagnosis and control of GIs, BVs, and STIs are important issues, given their long-term 88 consequences for fertility and overall well-being of affected women 1,4 . In the same way, 89 intrapartum screening for GBS colonisation is recommended in France at 35 to 37 weeks of 90 gestation to initiate antibiotic prophylaxis and prevent early-onset infection in neonates 5,6 . 91

92
In current medical practice, vaginal and/or cervical sampling is indicated in cases of suspicion 93 of (symptomatic) or screening for (asymptomatic) GIs, STIs or cases of asymptomatic 94 carriage in pregnant women in the eighth month of pregnancy. Conventional testing is 95 performed by using vaginal and/or cervical classic sampling (VCS). This procedure requires a 96 pelvic examination, speculum use and vaginal or endocervix sampling by health care 97 professionals such as gynaecologists, general practitioners, medical biologists and midwives. 98 Concerns related to cultural and religious norms, as well as economic issues, are often cited 99 as barriers to screenings performed with this method 7-10 . Moreover, specimen collection is 100 often complicated by in-clinic difficulties, such as delayed waiting time to obtain a medical 101 appointment and the lack of practitioners 11 . 102 Vaginal self-sampling (VSS) has progressively emerged as an alternative to VCS, primarily for 103 human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cervical cancer screening. Previous studies have 104 already been conducted by several teams, including us, and shown the efficacy and 105 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. Participants were asked to provide two types of genital samples: 148 1) Self-collected vaginal swabs (named "vaginal self-sampling" or VSS). 149 2) Vaginal/cervical swabs collected by a medical practitioner during a pelvic examination 150 (named "vaginal classic sampling" or VCS). 151 Randomised sampling technique was performed as follows: Half of the women were asked 152 to perform VSS before VCS, and the other half were asked to perform VSS after VCS. 153 Sampling order was specified on the clinical information form. A VSS paired sampling 154 (randomised order) and a VSS acceptability survey were prospectively collected. 155 Performing their VSS, participants were instructed to push the swab gently into their vagina, 156 turn it two times while wiping the vaginal wall and slowly remove the swab. The swab was 157 then inserted and released into the collection tube prior to capping with the lid. VCSs were 158 collected following the same procedure under speculum examination. 159 Two swabs were collected for both VSS and VCS: Copan ESwab (Biomérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, 160 France) and Cobas PCR media (Roche Diagnostics, Meylan, France). Microbiological analysis 161 and HSV molecular biology analysis were performed using Copan ESwab, and TV, CT, NG and 162 MG molecular biology analysis were performed using Cobas PCR media. 163 164

Microbiological analysis 165
The VSS and VCS tubes were shipped at ambient temperature to Alphabio laboratories in 166 Marseille for microbiological analysis and STI testing. Both VSS and VCS were treated within 167 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249269 doi: medRxiv preprint conditions. Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis and yeast colonization were similar to 262 previously reported 28-36 , and self-collection was comparable to clinician-based collection. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249269 doi: medRxiv preprint follow-up. Only 26% of participants preferred VCS to VSS, mostly because they were not 288 confident with the self-collection process (91%). A recent longitudinal study showed that VSS 289 acceptability improved over time as women became more familiar with the test. We can 290 therefore assume that the proportion of women who prefer VSS will increase. As previously 291 reported, acceptability of VSS was satisfactory among sexually active women surveyed in 292 this study [43][44][45][46][47] . 293

Strenghts and limitations 294
Conversely to most studies including small subsets of participants, our study benefited from 295 a large cohort (more than a 1000) of women, hence providing an accurate assessment of the 296 added value of VSS for future clinical standard-of-care. This large cohort provided robust 297 assessment of diagnostic performance. In addition, all self-collection results were paired 298 with vaginal classical co-testing. Both samples were collected with the same procedure, 299 treated with the same analytical methodology and within the same delay. 300 Our recruitment approach excluded infrequently screened women, although previous 301 studies have already reported a similar VSS efficacy and acceptability among within that 302 population 8,17 . The novelty of our study focuses on the utility of VSS to improve 303 gynaecologic monitoring regarding the challenge of pelvic examination. 304 The study could have been strengthened by assessing VSS adequacy (ie β-globing testing), 305 although high agreements between VCS and VSS comforted its validity. 306 Another limitation of our study is that α-risk was not corrected for multiplicity. However, this 307 limitation should be relativized according to the design of the study (non-inferiority of VSS 308 vs. VCS), the fact that observed absolute prevalence's of VSS are higher than VCS il all cases 309 is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. Vaginosis detection rates were determined among patients with bacterial vaginosis and/or yeast colonization. STI detection rates were determined among patients with TV, and/or CT, and/or NG, and/or MG, and/or HSV infection. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. ;  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249269 doi: medRxiv preprint