Preprints.org logo
Preprint
Concept Paper

This version is not peer-reviewed.

From Syndromic Management to Diagnostic Stewardship: Resolving the STI Diagnostic–AMR Paradox in Resource-Constrained Settings

Submitted:

31 August 2026

Posted:

01 September 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Syndromic management transformed sexually transmitted infection (STI) care in settings where laboratory diagnosis was unavailable, enabling standardized treatment at the first consultation. Its historical contribution remains substantial. Yet continued reliance on symptom-based algorithms now creates a global health contradiction. We propose the STI diagnostic–antimicrobial resistance (AMR) paradox: the same strategy can miss true infections, especially asymptomatic infections, while exposing people without the targeted infection to unnecessary or poorly targeted antimicrobials. The resulting combination of persistent transmission, avoidable antimicrobial exposure and weak pathogen-specific surveillance threatens both STI control and antimicrobial stewardship. The appropriate policy response is not the abrupt abandonment of syndromic care, nor indiscriminate molecular screening. It is a progressive transition to diagnostic stewardship: testing the right populations for the right pathogens, through technologies suited to the level of care, and ensuring that results guide treatment, partner services, surveillance and procurement. We propose a four-stage diagnostic continuum, from optimized syndromic care to targeted rapid testing, near-patient molecular diagnosis and integrated pathogen and resistance surveillance. Implementation should be evaluated through clinical appropriateness, feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, turnaround time, cost, equity and sustainability, rather than analytical accuracy alone. STI diagnostics should therefore be treated as health-system interventions and public goods that connect sexual health, universal health coverage, surveillance and AMR policy. National programmes, funders and implementers should prioritize context-specific implementation research and gradual, equity-centred integration into routine services.
Keywords: 
sexually transmitted infections
;  
syndromic management
;  
diagnostic stewardship
;  
antimicrobial resistance
;  
point-of-care testing
;  
implementation research
;  
health equity
;  
sub-Saharan Africa
Subject: 
Public Health and Healthcare  -   Health Policy and Services

Key Messages

  • Syndromic management remains necessary where timely, quality-assured testing is unavailable, but it should no longer be treated as the endpoint of STI service development.
  • The STI diagnostic–AMR paradox describes concurrent underdiagnosis of true infections, overtreatment of people without the targeted infection, persistent transmission and avoidable antimicrobial exposure.
  • The policy objective should be diagnostic stewardship, not unrestricted testing: diagnostic information must improve the microbiological appropriateness of treatment and strengthen surveillance.
  • Implementation success should be judged by feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, turnaround time, cost, equity and sustainability, alongside diagnostic performance.
  • National STI and AMR programmes should jointly finance a phased diagnostic continuum adapted to local epidemiology and health-system capacity.

Background: A Successful Strategy Facing a Changed Context

Sexually transmitted infections remain an important global public health challenge. In resource-constrained settings, syndromic management has provided a pragmatic response to limited laboratory access by linking recognizable symptom complexes to standardized treatment at the first visit. The World Health Organization (WHO) continues to recognize syndromic algorithms as a standard of care where laboratory diagnosis is unavailable or difficult to access, while recommending incorporation of quality-assured diagnostic tests where feasible [1].
The historical value of this approach should not be minimized. It simplified clinical decision-making, reduced dependence on laboratory infrastructure and protected same-day treatment in settings where patients may not be able to return. However, the epidemiological, technological and stewardship context has changed. Many curable STIs are asymptomatic, symptom complexes are not pathogen-specific, and antimicrobial resistance has made the ecological cost of diagnostic uncertainty increasingly consequential [2,3].
The relevant question is therefore not whether syndromic management was justified, but whether it should remain the dominant long-term model wherever diagnostic alternatives can now be introduced. We argue that global STI policy requires a transition from treatment access alone to treatment precision, without sacrificing timeliness or equity.

The STI Diagnostic–AMR Paradox

We define the STI diagnostic–AMR paradox as a health-system condition in which reliance on symptoms simultaneously produces two opposing errors. First, infections that are asymptomatic or poorly represented by the algorithm remain undetected and untreated. Second, nonspecific symptoms trigger empirical treatment in people who do not have the targeted bacterial infection. Together, these errors sustain transmission while increasing avoidable antimicrobial exposure.
Evidence from Mozambique illustrates the dual failure. Among reproductive-age women presenting with urogenital complaints, etiological testing identified substantial burdens of chlamydia, trichomoniasis, gonorrhoea and Mycoplasma genitalium. The vaginal-discharge algorithm missed a proportion of infections while treating many women who had none of the three targeted curable STIs [4]. This is not simply imperfect diagnostic accuracy. It is a systems problem because the errors affect treatment, partner management, commodity use, surveillance and trust in services.
The paradox is especially relevant for women and other populations in whom infection is frequently asymptomatic. A symptom-led system cannot reliably find infections that produce no symptoms. Conversely, vaginal discharge, dysuria, pelvic discomfort and genital irritation have multiple infectious and non-infectious causes. The same algorithm may therefore be insufficiently sensitive for case detection and insufficiently specific for antibiotic stewardship.
The principal mechanisms underlying the STI diagnostic-AMR paradox and their population and health-system consequences are summarized in Table 1.

Why the Paradox Matters for Antimicrobial Resistance and Surveillance

Antimicrobial stewardship depends on matching a justified antimicrobial to a likely or confirmed pathogen, at an appropriate dose and duration. Diagnostic uncertainty can make broad empirical treatment clinically understandable, but repeated population-level exposure creates selection pressure. This is particularly concerning for Neisseria gonorrhoeae, for which therapeutic options have progressively narrowed and surveillance is essential to guide treatment policy [5].
The problem extends beyond an individual prescription. When services record syndromes rather than pathogens, national programmes cannot accurately characterize aetiology, identify changing population patterns or connect prescribing practices with microbiological outcomes. Effective STI control therefore requires pathogen-specific information for clinical care and for public health intelligence. Diagnostic-led services can strengthen surveillance, partner notification and treatment evaluation, whereas diagnosis-free care creates surveillance blindness [6].
The paradox also exposes a governance gap. STI programmes may be judged by the number of people treated, while AMR programmes seek to reduce inappropriate antimicrobial use. Without shared indicators, the two policy agendas can work at cross-purposes. A more meaningful programme metric is the proportion of patients receiving microbiologically appropriate management, interpreted alongside access, timeliness and equity.

From Diagnostic Expansion to Diagnostic Stewardship

The solution is not to test everyone for every organism. Unfocused testing may consume scarce resources, identify conditions for which benefits of detection are uncertain, and worsen inequity if people must pay out of pocket. Diagnostic stewardship offers a more disciplined objective: selecting the right test for the right person and setting, obtaining a valid result within a clinically useful interval, and ensuring that the result changes care or public health action.
Point-of-care and near-patient technologies can support same-day decisions, but implementation barriers are multidimensional. A scoping review in low- and middle-income countries identified test characteristics, client factors, service delivery, policy and infrastructure, training and feedback, alternative testing environments and combined testing strategies as recurrent implementation domains [7]. Consequently, selecting a technically accurate assay is necessary but insufficient.
Many of these implementation challenges are not unique to STI diagnostics. Across low- and middle-income countries, point-of-care technologies have historically faced common barriers including procurement constraints, quality assurance requirements, supply-chain weaknesses, workforce limitations and fragmented health-system integration [8].
Test design should also reflect the REASSURED principles, which extend affordability, sensitivity, specificity, user-friendliness, rapidity and deliverability to include real-time connectivity and ease of specimen collection [9]. For STI care, these principles translate into privacy-sensitive sampling, minimal workflow disruption, clear quality controls, actionable turnaround time and connectivity to clinical and national reporting systems.
WHO target product profiles for point-of-care tests for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Trichomonas vaginalis provide a normative basis for aligning diagnostic development with programme needs [10]. Yet local implementation decisions must remain conditional on independently verified performance, regulatory status, supply continuity, quality assurance and affordability. Low-cost lateral-flow assays should not be presumed clinically adequate solely because they are operationally simple. A systematic review documented variable and often inadequate performance of point-of-care tests for chlamydia, underscoring the need for careful product-specific evidence [11].

A Phased Diagnostic Continuum for Resource-Constrained Settings

An immediate universal transition from syndromic care to molecular testing is neither feasible nor necessary. We propose a four-stage continuum that allows countries and facilities to progress according to epidemiology, service capacity and resources.
The proposed diagnostic continuum, associated service models, priority actions and monitoring indicators are presented in Table 2.
Programmes need not progress uniformly. A referral hospital, antenatal clinic, HIV service, pharmacy-linked model and rural primary-care facility may occupy different stages. The policy requirement is an explicit trajectory in which syndromic management is optimized where necessary but progressively supplemented where the expected clinical and public health value is highest.

Implementation Research: The Missing Bridge

The central research question has shifted from whether better diagnostics exist to how they can be integrated equitably and sustainably. Implementation research should evaluate not only sensitivity and specificity, but also acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, cost, penetration and sustainability. These outcomes distinguish a promising device from an effective service intervention [12].
A pragmatic evaluation could compare routine syndromic management with the same pathway supplemented by a rapid CT/NG test. The primary outcome should be the proportion of treatment decisions concordant with microbiological status among participants with a valid reference result. Secondary outcomes should include antibiotic use, time to decision, result availability during the visit, invalid tests, workflow fidelity, direct cost, provider and patient acceptability, and prospects for sustained procurement. Such a design makes treatment appropriateness, rather than test performance alone, the centre of evaluation.
Where full reference testing is unaffordable, targeted verification may be considered, but partial verification introduces bias and must be transparently addressed through predefined random sampling, documentation of selection probabilities, stratified analyses and sensitivity analyses. Pilot studies should not claim definitive superiority without adequate power. Their purpose is to determine whether an intervention works operationally, for whom, under what conditions and at what cost.
Recent expert consultation on STI testing in low-resource settings similarly prioritized workflow design, integration with existing services, quality assurance, national guideline revision, pathogen-specific reporting, procurement and implementation research [13]. This emerging agenda supports a move away from technology-first pilots toward programme-embedded learning.

Equity Must Shape the Transition

Diagnostic innovation can reduce inequity only if the route to implementation is explicitly equity-centred. Requiring patients to purchase tests may reserve diagnostic precision for those able to pay while leaving others with empirical treatment. Longer clinic visits may also disadvantage people with insecure employment, transport constraints or caregiving responsibilities. Same-day treatment, confidentiality, self-collection where appropriate and integration with HIV, antenatal, family-planning and primary-care services should therefore be evaluated as equity mechanisms, not merely operational conveniences.
Equity considerations extend beyond affordability and geographic access. Acceptable specimen-collection strategies are equally important. Evidence from East Africa suggests that self-collected vaginal swabs can be highly acceptable among adolescent girls, highlighting the potential of user-centred diagnostic pathways to increase participation in STI testing programmes while reducing privacy-related barriers associated with clinician-collected sampling [14]. Self-collection may therefore represent an important strategy for expanding equitable access to STI diagnostics among adolescents and young women, particularly in settings where stigma, confidentiality concerns or workforce shortages limit uptake of conventional services.
Evidence from South African adolescents suggests that introducing STI point-of-care testing into settings where syndromic management remains the standard of care may be both acceptable and feasible, although programmes must also consider the additional costs associated with implementation [15]. Similar feasibility has also been demonstrated in maternal-health settings, where near-patient STI testing enabled same-day clinical management and integration into routine antenatal services [16].
A systematic review of economic evaluations further concluded that the cost-effectiveness of STI point-of-care testing in low- and middle-income countries is highly context-dependent and influenced by epidemiology, implementation models and health-system costs [17]. National adoption should therefore be informed by costs to both the health system and the patient.

Policy Actions for National STI and AMR Programmes

1. Adopt a joint STI–AMR accountability framework. Track treatment appropriateness, antimicrobial exposure and pathogen-specific surveillance alongside conventional service coverage.
2. Define priority use cases. Prioritize symptomatic patients in whom a rapid result can change treatment, selected populations with a high burden of asymptomatic infection, and sentinel surveillance sites.
3. Protect same-day care. Choose decentralized or near-patient models that return actionable results during the clinical encounter wherever loss to follow-up is likely.
4. Require quality-assured procurement. Base purchasing on independently verified performance, regulatory status, lot traceability, storage requirements, external quality assurance and post-market monitoring.
5. Leverage existing molecular platforms and laboratory networks. Before investing in new instruments, national programmes should assess whether molecular platforms already deployed for tuberculosis, HIV or other priority diseases can support STI testing. Leveraging existing infrastructure may reduce duplication of capital investments and facilitate the progressive introduction of molecular testing where clinical and public health benefits are greatest.
6. Budget for the service, not only the cartridge. Include training, supervision, quality control, connectivity, waste management, maintenance, confirmatory or reference testing and supply-chain resilience.
7. Mobilize catalytic financing while planning for long-term sustainability. International partners and funding mechanisms may play an important role in supporting implementation research, early adoption, training and quality assurance of STI diagnostics. However, long-term scale-up should be accompanied by sustainable domestic financing strategies.
8. Build pathogen-specific surveillance. Connect routine diagnostic data with sentinel culture and susceptibility testing for gonorrhoea and other priority pathogens.
9. Use implementation evidence for staged scale-up. Expand only when clinical utility, feasibility, acceptability, cost, equity and sustainability are demonstrated in the intended context.
These actions align STI diagnosis with universal health coverage by treating diagnostic access as a component of quality care rather than an optional laboratory add-on. They also create a feedback loop in which clinical testing generates surveillance intelligence, surveillance updates guidelines, and updated guidelines improve prescribing.

Risks and Safeguards

A diagnostic transition can fail if it is equated with procurement. Poorly performing products, stock-outs, invalid results, weak supervision, delayed turnaround, non-use of results by clinicians and fragmented reporting can reproduce the same uncertainty at higher cost. Pilot programmes should predefine stopping or adaptation rules. If a test lacks acceptable performance or cannot be supplied sustainably, the appropriate decision may be not to scale it.
Overdiagnosis and overtreatment also remain possible in diagnostic-led systems. Molecular detection does not always establish causality for a symptom, and expanding testing to low-risk populations can identify infections or colonization whose management requires careful evidence-based guidance. Diagnostic stewardship must therefore remain linked to treatment guidelines and antimicrobial stewardship rather than becoming a stand-alone testing campaign.

Conclusions

Syndromic management was an appropriate and equity-promoting response to diagnostic scarcity. Its continued use remains necessary in some settings. However, treating syndromic care as a permanent endpoint creates an increasingly untenable contradiction: infections that require treatment may remain undetected, while people without the targeted infection receive antimicrobials, and national programmes remain deprived of pathogen-specific intelligence.
The STI diagnostic–AMR paradox reframes this challenge as a global health systems problem. The answer is neither abrupt abandonment of syndromic care nor indiscriminate testing. It is a phased transition to diagnostic stewardship, designed around treatment appropriateness, same-day actionability, quality assurance, implementation outcomes, equity and sustainability.
Diagnostics should be recognized as public health interventions that connect individual care with partner services, surveillance, guideline development and AMR control. This perspective is consistent with recently identified global STI research priorities that emphasize improved diagnostics, implementation science and more effective integration of STI services within health systems [18]. The next generation of STI programmes should be measured not only by how many people receive treatment, but by how often treatment is microbiologically appropriate, timely and equitably delivered.

Author Contributions

DMM conceived the argument, developed the conceptual framework, reviewed the evidence and wrote the manuscript.

Funding

No specific funding was received for this article.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable. This article presents a conceptual and policy analysis and reports no individual-level data.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable because no datasets were generated or analysed for this article.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges colleagues at CREBM and the National AIDS and STI Control Programme whose implementation discussions informed the policy questions developed in this Perspective. This statement does not imply endorsement of the manuscript. Generative artificial intelligence was used for language and structural assistance under the author’s direction. The author critically reviewed the manuscript and assumes full responsibility for its content, accuracy and integrity.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no competing interests.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Guidelines for the management of symptomatic sexually transmitted infections; World Health Organization: Geneva, 2021; ISBN 978-92-4-002416-8. [Google Scholar]
  2. Herbst de Cortina, S.; Bristow, C.C.; Joseph Davey, D.; Klausner, J.D. A systematic review of point of care testing for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis. Infect. Dis. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 2016, 4386127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gupta, V.; Sharma, V.K. Syndromic management of sexually transmitted infections: a critical appraisal and the road ahead. Natl. Med. J. India 2019, 32(3), 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Manjate, A.; Sergon, G.; Kenga, D.; Golparian, D.; Tyulenev, Y.; Loquilha, O.; et al. Prevalence of sexually transmitted infections, associations with sociodemographic and behavioural factors, and assessment of the syndromic management of vaginal discharge in women with urogenital complaints in Mozambique. Front Reprod. Health 2024, 6, 1323926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Unemo, M.; Seifert, H.S.; Hook, E.W., 3rd; Hawkes, S.; Ndowa, F.; Dillon, J.A.R. Gonorrhoea. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2019, 5(1), 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wi, T.; Lahra, M.M.; Ndowa, F.; Bala, M.; Dillon, J.A.R.; Ramon-Pardo, P.; et al. Antimicrobial resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae: global surveillance and a call for international collaborative action. PLoS Med. 2017, 14(7), e1002344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Martin, K.; Wenlock, R.; Roper, T.; Butler, C.; Vera, J.H. Facilitators and barriers to point-of-care testing for sexually transmitted infections in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. BMC Infect. Dis. 2022, 22(1), 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pai, N.P.; Vadnais, C.; Denkinger, C.; Engel, N.; Pai, M. Point-of-care testing for infectious diseases: diversity, complexity, and barriers in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS Med. 2012, 9(9), e1001306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Land, K.J.; Boeras, D.I.; Chen, X.S.; Ramsay, A.R.; Peeling, R.W. REASSURED diagnostics to inform disease control strategies, strengthen health systems and improve patient outcomes. Nat. Microbiol. 2019, 4(1), 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. World Health Organization. Point-of-care tests for sexually transmitted infections: target product profiles; World Health Organization: Geneva, 2023; ISBN 978-92-4-007710-2. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zhou, Y.; Jiang, T.T.; Li, J.; Yin, Y.P.; Chen, X.S. Performance of point-of-care tests for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 2021, 37, 100961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Proctor, E.K.; Silmere, H.; Raghavan, R.; Hovmand, P.; Aarons, G.; Bunger, A.; et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm. Policy Ment. Health 2011, 38(2), 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Manguro, G.O.; Ray, J.; Schocken, C.; Were, D.K.; Omballa, V.O.; Johnson, C.C.; et al. From syndromic management to diagnostic-led management: a report from an expert meeting on introducing sexually transmitted infection testing in low-resource settings. Sex. Transm. Infect. 2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Francis, S.C.; Miiro, G.; Nakuya, K.; Nakubulwa, S.; Kungu, J.M.; Kigozi, G.; et al. Self-collection of vaginal swabs among adolescent girls in a school-setting in East Africa. Sex. Transm. Dis. 2019, 46(5), 335–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Marcus, R.; Patel, C.; Gill, K.; Orrell, C.; Bekker, L.G.; De Vries, H.J.C.; et al. Acceptability, feasibility and cost of point of care testing for sexually transmitted infections among South African adolescents where syndromic management is standard of care. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2023, 23, 1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Badman, S.G.; Vallely, L.M.; Toliman, P.; Kariwiga, G.; Lote, B.; Pomat, W.; et al. A novel point-of-care testing strategy for sexually transmitted infections among pregnant women in high-burden settings: results of a feasibility study in Papua New Guinea. BMC Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Saweri, O.P.M.; Batura, N.; Al Adawiyah, R.; Causer, L.; Pomat, W.; Vallely, A.; et al. Economic evaluation of point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections in pregnancy in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 2021, 16(6), e0253135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gottlieb, S.L.; Spielman, E.; Abu-Raddad, L.J.; et al. WHO global research priorities for sexually transmitted infections. Lancet Glob. Health 2024, 12(9), e1544–e1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. The STI diagnostic–AMR paradox as a global health systems problem.
Table 1. The STI diagnostic–AMR paradox as a global health systems problem.
Mechanism Immediate effect Population consequence System consequence
Asymptomatic or atypical infection No syndrome-triggered treatment Persistent infection and transmission Underestimated burden and missed prevention opportunities
Nonspecific symptoms Empirical broad treatment Adverse effects and avoidable antibiotic exposure Selection pressure, commodity waste and stock pressure
Absence of pathogen identification Uncertain treatment appropriateness Repeat visits or unresolved infection Syndrome-based rather than pathogen-specific surveillance
Limited susceptibility testing Delayed recognition of treatment failure Ongoing transmission of resistant infection Guidelines lag behind current epidemiology
Table 2. Proposed four-stage STI diagnostic continuum for resource-constrained settings.
Table 2. Proposed four-stage STI diagnostic continuum for resource-constrained settings.
Stage Service model Priority actions Core indicators
1. Optimized syndromic care Current algorithms where testing is unavailable Update guidelines; train providers; audit prescribing; ensure referral and follow-up Guideline adherence; treatment completion; return visits; antibiotic use
2. Targeted rapid testing Syndromic care supplemented for selected pathogens or populations Introduce quality-assured rapid tests; protect same-day treatment; monitor invalid results Result availability during visit; change in prescription; validity; acceptability
3. Diagnostic-led near-patient care Rapid molecular or validated antigen testing guides treatment Integrate workflow, quality assurance, procurement and electronic reporting Microbiologically appropriate therapy; turnaround time; cost; equity
4. Integrated surveillance and stewardship Clinical testing linked to pathogen and AMR surveillance Sentinel culture/susceptibility; molecular epidemiology; guideline feedback loops Resistance trends; guideline responsiveness; geographic and population coverage
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.