Chlamydial ocular infection: efficacy of partner notification by patient referral

Is gonorrhea becoming untreatable?

An estimated 498 million new cases of curable sexually transmitted infections occur worldwide annually. Of these, 106 million are gonococcal infections, rendering gonorrhea the second most prevalent bacterial sexually transmitted infection after chlamydia. A decline in susceptibility to extended-spectrum cephalosporins, as well as treatment failures, have been identified worldwide. This, together with the associated epidemiological and socioeconomic burden, is of increasing concern. Currently, the effectiveness of antibiotic resistance control measures is limited. Barriers include the lack of therapeutic options, the difficulties of reducing high-risk sexual behavior and Neisseria gonorrhoeae's propensity to rapidly acquire resistance determinants. While the disease remains treatable for the moment, we need to anticipate and be prepared for the arrival and spread of untreatable gonorrhea by using a multifaceted approach and search for other, perhaps novel control strategies.

Experiences and outcomes of partner notification among men and women recently diagnosed with Chlamydia and their views on innovative resources aimed at improving notification rates

OBJECTIVE

To describe the partner notification experiences of individuals diagnosed with chlamydia and to determine what supports might best assist them.

GOAL

To determine what supports might best assist chlamydia infected individuals to notify their partners.

STUDY DESIGN

A telephone survey was undertaken with men and women recently diagnosed with chlamydia across 3 Australian jurisdictions between August 2007 and January 2008.

RESULTS

Of the 286 individuals who agreed to be contacted about the study, 202 (71%) completed the survey. Twenty-three percent (333/1458) of recent partners were notified: men who had sex with men (MSM) notified 15% (133/880) of their partners, heterosexual men 31% (114/370), and women 46% (86/188) of their partners (P < 0.001). Overall, 84% (169/202) of individuals notified at least one partner. The main reasons for informing partners were out of concern for them (44%) or because it was considered "the right thing to do" (37%). The preferred methods for contacting partners were telephone (52%) and face-to-face (30%). E-mail (8%) and short message service (SMS) (11%) were less commonly used; however, if offered a website with anonymous e-mail and SMS services, nearly half of individuals indicated they would find this useful. Of those who had not informed all partners with known contact details (n = 94), 34% reported that if web-based tools were available they would have contacted more partners. Over half of participants would like to have been given antibiotics to give to their partner.

CONCLUSION

The availability of tailored resources may assist in improving partner notification for chlamydia.

Patient-Delivered Partner Treatment and Other Partner Management Strategies for Sexually Transmitted Diseases Used by New York City Healthcare Providers

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to measure frequency and predictors of patient-delivered partner treatment (PDPT) and the frequency of other partner management strategies among New York City healthcare providers (HCPs) as well as to determine whether use of PDPT detracts from other partner management strategies.

STUDY DESIGN

The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of New York City HCPs.

RESULTS

Frequent patient referral was reported by 93.6% (368 of 393) of healthcare providers; only 20% (80 of 401) reported frequent use of provider referral. Overall, 49.2% (196 of 398) of HCPs reported ever using PDPT and 27.1% (108 of 398) reported using PDPT frequently. HCP specialty, practice setting, duration of practice, report of frequent provider referral practice, and HCP race/ethnicity were the strongest predictors of PDPT use. HCPs reporting PDPT use were more likely to report frequent provider referral than those who had never used PDPT (26.7% vs. 12.6%; P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PDPT use is common and is being used in conjunction with other partner management strategies.

Patient-delivered partner treatment for Trichomonas vaginalis infection: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Infections with Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) are common and recurrence rates are high. Better methods of treating partners of women with trichomoniasis are needed.

GOAL

To determine if patient-delivered partner treatment (PDPT) is better and more cost-effective than partner referral.

STUDY DESIGN

Women attending a family planning clinic who were culture-positive and treated for TV (N = 463) were randomized to either standard partner referral (PR), booklet-enhanced partner referral (BEPR), or PDPT. At baseline and 1 month, women were interviewed and cultured for TV. Detailed cost information was also collected.

RESULTS

Most women had 1 partner, were less than 24 years old, and were black. The percentage of women reporting that their partners were treated was similar for PDPT but significantly lower for BEPR compared to PR. TV follow-up rates were similar. PDPT cost less and was cost saving compared to PR and BEPR.

CONCLUSION

Among women with TV, PDPT did not result in more partners taking the medicine or lower follow-up rates than PR but was less costly.

Innovative Approaches to the Prevention and Control of Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections

Bacterial STI continues to be a major problem in developed nations. Research and evolving standards of public health practice are cause for optimism and concern. Innovations in case-finding and treatment, particularly the application of NAATs to test for chlamydial infection in nonclinical settings, are successes that merit more widespread application. EPT, selective STI screening in men, and rescreening are all promising, but are not yet in widespread use and may face significant operational barriers. To date, public health efforts to alter sexual behavior, at least through specific interventions, are more discouraging. Although some behavioral interventions have been effective, none has been widely instituted. Moreover, the likelihood that existing behavioral interventions will be widely applied seems remote. Future research efforts in this area will need to focus less on proof-of-concept efficacy trials and more on developing and testing sustainable, cost-effective interventions that focus on those at greatest risk and that can be scaled-up within the existing public health infrastructure.

Investigation into the acceptability and effectiveness of a new contact slip in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis at a London genitourinary medicine clinic

OBJECTIVES

To improve contact tracing for chlamydia. To determine (i) the acceptability to patients of using a contact slip that named chlamydia as the sexually transmissible infection that the contact may have been at risk of acquiring, and (ii) whether an augmented contact slip issued for chlamydia significantly increased the number of sexual partners attending for treatment.

METHODS

For a 2 month period, all consecutive heterosexual patients diagnosed with chlamydia at the Mortimer Market Centre (MMC) were offered one or more coded contact slips (CS1) as per clinic protocol. During this time, and for 1 month afterwards, contacts presenting as a result of receiving these contact slips were recorded. This was compared to a subsequent 2 month period during which a contact slip naming chlamydia as the potential infection, with an information leaflet attached (CS2), was issued. Contacts attending as a result of receiving this augmented contact slip were recorded over a similar period. For both cohorts the number of patients refusing either contact slip, and contacts attending other GUM clinics, were recorded.

RESULTS

121 patients were diagnosed with chlamydia and were seen by a health adviser in period one and 130 patients were diagnosed and seen in period two. There was no significant difference detected between the acceptability of CS1 and CS2 (one refusal per cohort). There was a significant increase in the number of sexual contacts attending for treatment after being given CS2 (160 attending of 190 contact slips issued (84%, 95% CI 79 to 89)), compared to CS1 (48 attending of 144 contact slips issued (33%, 95% CI 26 to 43)).

CONCLUSIONS

An infection specific contact slip was equally acceptable to patients as the standard contact slip, and it significantly increased the number of sexual contacts attending for treatment.

Epidemiology of genital chlamydial infections in patients with chlamydial conjunctivitis; a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To determine how often chlamydial conjunctivitis is accompanied by a genital chlamydial infection and if there is a correlation between the dominant hand and the eye first infected.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied the records of 65 patients with chlamydial conjunctivitis who were referred to the Outpatient Department of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) of the University Hospital Rotterdam by ophthalmologists of the Eye Hospital Rotterdam. The patients have recently been asked by letter if they were left- or right-handed.

RESULTS

Twenty of the 37 men (54%) had a positive chlamydial urethral culture. Seventy per cent of these men had no genital symptoms. Eight of the 37 men (22%) had a non-specific urethritis (NSU). Twenty of the 27 women examined (74%) had a positive chlamydial cervical culture. Sixty per cent of these women had no genital symptoms. Eight women with a genital chlamydial infection also had another genital infection. Five women without a genital chlamydial infection had another genital infection. Two women had no genital infection at all. A correlation between the eye infected and left- or right-handedness of the patient could not be found.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable percentage of the patients with a chlamydial conjunctivitis had a concomitant genital chlamydial infection. The majority of them had no genital symptoms. Since patients with chlamydial conjunctivitis and/or their partners possibly have a concomitant genital chlamydial infection, we recommend referral of both patients and sexual partners to an STD clinic for routine examination and systemic treatment when indicated.