4.1 Article

Evaluation of Gonorrhea Test of Cure at 1 Week in a Los Angeles Community-Based Clinic Serving Men Who Have Sex With Men

期刊

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
卷 41, 期 10, 页码 595-600

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000190

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural CDC HHS [CC999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Because of the decreasing susceptibility of Neisseria gonorrhoeae to cephalosporin therapy, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends test of cure (TOC) 1 week after gonorrhea (GC) treatment if therapies other than ceftriaxone are used. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asks clinicians, particularly those caring for men who have sex with men (MSM) on the west coast, to consider retesting all MSM at 1 week. However, it is unclear if this is acceptable to providers and patients or if nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are useful for TOC at 7 days. Methods: Between January and July 2012, MSM with GC were advised to return 1 week after treatment for TOC using NAAT. A multi-variate logistic regression model was used to determine demographic and behavioral differences between MSM who returned for follow-up and MSM who did not. Results: Of 737 men with GC, 194 (26.3%) returned between 3 and 21 days of treatment. Individuals who returned were more likely to have no GC history (P = 0.0001) and to report no initial symptoms (P = 0.02) when compared with individuals who did not return for TOC. Of those who returned, 0% of urethral samples, 7.4% of rectal samples, and 5.3% of pharyngeal samples were NAAT positive at TOC. Conclusions: Although TOC may be an important strategy in reducing complications and the spread of GC, low return rates may make implementation challenging. If implemented, extra efforts should be considered to enhance return rates among individuals with a history of GC. If TOCs are recommended at 1 week and NAATs are used, the interpretation of positive results, particularly those from extragenital sites, may be difficult.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据