Screening is not associated with reduced incidence of gonorrhoea or chlamydia in men who have sex with men (MSM); an ecological study of 23 European countries

Orogenital and anal infection by Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Mycoplasma genitalium, and other sexually transmitted infections in men who have sex with men in Lisbon

BACKGROUND

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), but more data on extragenital carriage are needed.

AIM

We assessed the genital and extragenital prevalence of bacterial and other STIs in MSM in a Lisbon sexual health clinic.

METHODS

We screened oral, anal, and urine samples of MSM visiting the GAT-CheckpointLX clinic June 2017-December 2021 for Chlamydia trachomatis (including lymphogranuloma venereum, LGV), Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Mycoplasma genitalium, Trichomonas vaginalis, Mycoplasma hominis, Ureaplasma urealyticum, and U. parvum. Ano-oro-genital lesions were tested for LGV, Treponema pallidum, and Herpes Simplex Virus. Blood was tested for HIV and T. pallidum antibodies.

RESULTS

N. gonorrhoeae was found in 16.6% of the MSM followed by C. trachomatis (13.2%), M. genitalium (10.3%) and T. vaginalis (0.2%). The most frequent occurrence was anorectal (C. trachomatis, M. genitalium) and oral (N. gonorrhoeae). We found high carriage of U. urealyticum (36.1%) and M. hominis (22.1%). LGV was detected in 21.8% of chlamydia-positive anorectal swabs. Syphilis was detected in 22.6% of tested MSM, while 13.8% had HIV. Gonorrhoea and chlamydia were significantly more prevalent in MSM with concomitant HIV or syphilis.

CONCLUSION

The substantial extragenital prevalence of bacterial STIs in MSM, and HIV and syphilis coinfections, suggest screening has value in identifying hidden carriage and in contributing for providing better care.

Frequent screening for asymptomatic chlamydia and gonorrhoea infections in men who have sex with men: time to re-evaluate?

There is increasing debate regarding the harms and benefits of frequent asymptomatic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in men who have sex with men (MSM). One concern is that frequent asymptomatic screening could result in increased antimicrobial resistance in an array of sexually acquired infections and other pathogens, due to selection pressure exerted by frequent broad-spectrum antimicrobial usage within some sexual networks. Here, we outline the harms and benefits of frequent C trachomatis and N gonorrhoeae screening in MSM in high-income settings and propose that screening frequency be reduced. We describe the evidence gaps that should be further explored to better understand the implications of reducing the frequency of asymptomatic C trachomatis and N gonorrhoeae screening in MSM and the surveillance systems that should be in place to prepare for such changes.

Controversies and evidence on Chlamydia testing and treatment in asymptomatic women and men who have sex with men: a narrative review

Background

Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) is the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) worldwide. CT is mainly asymptomatic. Test-and-treat strategies are widely implemented to prevent transmission and complications. Strategies are not without controversy in asymptomatic women and men who have sex with men (MSM). Concerns are emerging to test and treat asymptomatic persons for urogenital CT (‘Controversy 1’) and pharyngeal or rectal CT (‘Controversy 2’), whereby testing symptomatic persons is not under debate. Opposed views in CT treatment involve using azithromycin versus doxycycline (‘Controversy 3’). The objective of this review is to provide coverage of these public health and clinical controversies by reviewing the current scientific evidence.

Methods

A literature search was performed using PubMed for relevant publications between 2018 and September 2021, and iterative retrieval of additional relevant publications.

Results

Controversy 1. In women, the majority of asymptomatic CT are at the urogenital site, and detections mostly include viable CT. CT easily transmits to a partner and potentially also between the vaginal and rectal areas; the clinical impact of urogenital CT is established, although risks for adverse outcomes are uncertain. Wide-scale testing in asymptomatic women has not resulted in reduced prevalence. In MSM, evidence for the clinical impact of asymptomatic urogenital CT is lacking. Controversy 2. Rectal CT is common in women diagnosed with urogenital CT, but the clinical impact of asymptomatic rectal CT is uncertain. In MSM, rectal CT is common, and most CT infections are at the rectal site, yet the risk of longer term complications is unknown. In both sexes, pharyngeal CT is uncommon and has no documented clinical impact. Controversy 3. In the treatment of rectal CT, doxycycline has superior effectiveness to azithromycin. Evidence has also accumulated on the harms of test-and-treat strategies.

Conclusions

Current practices vary widely, from widescale test-and-treat approaches to more individual patient- and partner-level case management. Choosing which asymptomatic people to test at what anatomic site, and whether to test or not, requires an urgent (re-)definition of the goals of testing and treating asymptomatic persons. Treatment guidelines are shifting toward universal doxycycline use, and clinical practice now faces the challenge of implementation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07171-2.

Test-and-treat is a key strategy in the control of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT). We discuss recent controversies and present scientific evidence regarding urogenital, rectal, and pharyngeal CT test-and-treat strategies in women and in men who have sex with men (MSM). This should inform best practices for the prevention and management of the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) worldwide.

Facing increased sexually transmitted infection incidence in HIV preexposure prophylaxis cohorts: what are the underlying determinants and what can be done?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The combined incidence of chlamydia, gonorrhoea and syphilis in MSM PrEP (preexposure prophylaxis) cohorts now frequently exceeds 100 per 100 person years. The efficacy of antiretroviral PrEP in reducing HIV transmission has led to efforts to find similar biomedical ways reduce sexually transmitted infection (STI) incidence. We review the recent evidence for these and other strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Doxycycline PrEP/postexposure prophylaxis has been shown to reduce the incidence of syphilis and chlamydia but not gonorrhoea. A meningococcal vaccine has been found to result in a lower incidence of gonorrhoea. Novel insights into the role of the pharynx in the transmission of gonorrhoea have led to clinical trials of oral antiseptics to reduce the spread of gonorrhoea. Intensified STI screening has been introduced in a number of clinics. Serious concerns have however been raised about the emergence of resistance to each of these strategies. This is particularly true for doxycycline PrEP which is not advocated by any guidelines we reviewed.

SUMMARY

Randomized controlled trials are urgently required to ascertain the benefits and risks of interventions to reduce STIs in MSM PrEP cohorts.

Toward a Set of Criteria to Decide Which STIs to Screen for in PrEP Cohorts

Contemporary HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) cohorts are characterized by high rates of partner change and as a result have high and fairly stable prevalences of N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis. The available evidence suggests that intensive 3-monthly screening in this setting does not have a large effect on the prevalence of these infections but results in high antimicrobial exposures. Gonorrhea/chlamydia screening may thus be doing more harm than good. Compelling arguments can, however, be made to screen for HIV, hepatitis C, and syphilis in PrEP cohorts. In this perspective piece, we explore the logical basis for deciding which STIs to screen for in PrEP cohorts. We propose that a Delphi consensus methodology is used to derive, assess, and apply a broadly accepted set of criteria to evaluate which STIs to screen for in these cohorts. Finally, to illustrate the utility of the process, we derive and apply our own list of criteria as to which STIs to screen for. This process leads to a controversial conclusion, namely that stopping gonorrhea/chlamydia screening in a controlled and phased manner may offer net health benefits to PrEP cohorts.