Why did we contact them?

We reached out to Prof. Dr. med. Braun, a specialist in Infectiology, General Internal Medicine, and Pharmaceutical Medicine at Hirslanden Hospital, with a focus on sexually transmitted infections (STIs), in order to:

  • Gain insights into the clinical practice of STI testing
  • Evaluate the relevance and necessity of our proposed STI self-test
  • Receive feedback on our approach and design choices, to ensure the test is clinically meaningful and useful
Picture of Prof. Dr. med. Dominique Laurent Braun
Prof. Dr. med. Dominique Laurent Braun

Discussion

Choice of Pathogens

Prof. Dr. med. Braun emphasized the importance of clarifying the intended use of our test. For screening purposes, the test would be incomplete without including HIV and Syphilis. He advised against testing for Mycoplasma genitalium and cautioned that sequence selection must account for potential cross-reactivity between Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Neisseria meningitidis. He also noted that Trichomonas is usually tested only in symptomatic cases, not in general screening.

Choice of sample

He emphasized that relying on urine samples alone is not enough, since roughly three-quarters of STIs occur extragenitally. To achieve reliable results, it is essential to test at the actual sites of exposure, which often means taking anal, genital, and pharyngeal swabs. For HIV and Syphilis, he explained, blood samples are required. In rare cases, Syphilis can even be detected earlier through a urethral swab, though this is the exception rather than the rule. He went on to clarify that HPV testing requires cervical or anal swabs rather than urine, as urine does not provide meaningful results. Similarly, while Chlamydia and Gonorrhea can be found in urine, they can be missed this way and are more reliably detected through additional pharyngeal or rectal swabs.

Self-Sampling

He explained that he does not view self-sampling negatively. In fact, even within clinics, patients are usually asked to collect their own samples in private, so the concept itself is already well established in practice.

Current Solutions

He argued that reliable STI tests are already available, offering high sensitivity and specificity. As examples, he mentioned the pilot project run by the city of Zurich, which provides free STI testing for residents under 25, and the initiative by Aids-Hilfe Schweiz, which distributed self-tests during the COVID-19 lockdown. However, the latter had to be discontinued after Swissmedic, the national regulatory authority, intervened.

Potential and Need for Our Solution

From his perspective, people who show symptoms already tend to seek testing directly at medical practices. For that reason, he argued, the true value of our test would lie in screening asymptomatic individuals, where infections often remain hidden and transmission chains continue unnoticed.

Treatment

When we turned to treatment, he clarified that not every positive result automatically requires therapy—for example, Trichomonas infections do not always need treatment. In contrast, HIV and Syphilis must always be treated without exception. For Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, he pointed out, the situation is less clear, as there is still ongoing debate about whether asymptomatic infections should be treated systematically.

Main Takeaways

  • We should not include Mycoplasma genitalium.
  • Urine samples alone are insufficient; swabs from additional sites are necessary.
  • HIV and Syphilis are essential for meaningful screening.
  • A positive test ≠ treatment necessary.

Integration

Based on the insights provided by Prof. Dr. med. Braun, we refined our project design to better reflect clinical realities. His input helped shape several key adjustments, ensuring that our diagnostic test is practical, reliable, and aligned with how STIs are detected and managed in everyday medical practice.

  • Exclusion of Mycoplasma genitalium: While we initially considered including M. genitalium, we decided against it. Prof. Dr. med. Braun explained that it is not routinely recommended in screening contexts. Removing it from our panel allowed us to focus on pathogens with clear clinical value.
  • Inclusion of Syphilis: The conversation convinced us that excluding Syphilis would greatly reduce the usefulness of our test as a screening tool. We therefore expanded our test panel to include Syphilis, even though it requires a blood sample, which adds a different type of sample to our workflow.
  • Reconsideration of sampling strategy: One of the strongest insights from this discussion was the need to move beyond urine samples alone. We therefore started exploring how to adapt our paper-based test for swab samples (pharyngeal, anal, cervical), ensuring that extragenital infections are not missed. This shift broadens the applicability of our test and makes it more suitable for real-world screening scenarios.
  • Stakeholder engagements: To learn more about some topics from this interview we contacted and engaged with Checkpoint Zurich, the largest testing facility in Zurich for STIs, Prof. Dr. med. Betschart to learn more about a gynecologist's perspective, with Swissmedic, to learn more about the regulatory aspects, and with AIDS-Hilfe Schweiz.

However, we decided against testing for HIV, even though it is one of the most important pathogens in STI screening. In Switzerland and many other countries, commercially available self-tests for HIV already exist, are widely distributed and are considered reliable by health authorities. Instead of duplicating these, we focused on pathogens for which there are no easily accessible self-testing solutions - closing the gap to self testing for STIs.

Overall, this expert input pushed us to refine our approach: to prioritize pathogens of highest clinical relevance, avoid tests with limited actionable outcomes, and adjust our sampling strategy to better reflect the epidemiology of STIs. These changes make our test design more robust, realistic, and impactful.

Top