Derval Harte1, Danielle Mercey, Jay Jarman, Paul Benn. 1. Department of Genitourinary Medicine, Mortimer Market Centre, Camden Provider Services, Central North and West London Foundation Trust, London, UK. d.harte@nhs.net
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and outcomes of recalling men who have sex with men (MSM) diagnosed as having a bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) for re-screening. METHODS: This evaluation was conducted from December 2008 for a 9-month period. MSM diagnosed as having a bacterial STI in that period were offered recall for re-screening 3 months after their diagnosis. Re-screening rates and infection incidence were calculated. Differences in baseline characteristics by re-screening status and factors predictive of infection at re-screening were assessed using the Mann-Whitney test, χ(2) test and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 337 MSM diagnosed as having a bacterial STI, 301 were offered recall. Of these, 206 (68.4%) re-screened after 3 months, 30 (10%) declined and the remainder did not re-attend despite giving verbal consent. Compared with those not re-screening, those re-screening were less likely to be HIV positive (p=0.001), but there was no difference in baseline risk behaviours. There were 15 diagnoses of bacterial STIs at re-screening (29 per 100 person-year follow-up (pyfu); 95% CI 14.3 to 43.7) and five new HIV diagnoses of whom three had a negative test at baseline, one tested negative 6 months earlier and one never tested. Among those testing at both time points, the HIV incidence was 8.3 per 100 pyfu (95% CI 0.0 to 17.7). CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation demonstrates a 'recall for re-screening' strategy is feasible in terms of high re-screening rates and incidence of new infections diagnosed. Experimental evidence is needed to assess cost-effectiveness and whether it achieves its aim of reducing transmission of STIs and HIV.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and outcomes of recallingmen who have sex with men (MSM) diagnosed as having a bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) for re-screening. METHODS: This evaluation was conducted from December 2008 for a 9-month period. MSM diagnosed as having a bacterial STI in that period were offered recall for re-screening 3 months after their diagnosis. Re-screening rates and infection incidence were calculated. Differences in baseline characteristics by re-screening status and factors predictive of infection at re-screening were assessed using the Mann-Whitney test, χ(2) test and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 337 MSM diagnosed as having a bacterial STI, 301 were offered recall. Of these, 206 (68.4%) re-screened after 3 months, 30 (10%) declined and the remainder did not re-attend despite giving verbal consent. Compared with those not re-screening, those re-screening were less likely to be HIV positive (p=0.001), but there was no difference in baseline risk behaviours. There were 15 diagnoses of bacterial STIs at re-screening (29 per 100 person-year follow-up (pyfu); 95% CI 14.3 to 43.7) and five new HIV diagnoses of whom three had a negative test at baseline, one tested negative 6 months earlier and one never tested. Among those testing at both time points, the HIV incidence was 8.3 per 100 pyfu (95% CI 0.0 to 17.7). CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation demonstrates a 'recall for re-screening' strategy is feasible in terms of high re-screening rates and incidence of new infections diagnosed. Experimental evidence is needed to assess cost-effectiveness and whether it achieves its aim of reducing transmission of STIs and HIV.
Authors: Kirsty S Smith; Jane S Hocking; Marcus Chen; Christopher K Fairley; Anna McNulty; Phillip Read; Catriona S Bradshaw; Sepehr N Tabrizi; Handan Wand; Marion Saville; William Rawlinson; Suzanne M Garland; Basil Donovan; John M Kaldor; Rebecca Guy Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: K S Smith; J M Kaldor; J S Hocking; M S Jamil; A M McNulty; P Read; C S Bradshaw; M Y Chen; C K Fairley; H Wand; K Worthington; S Blake; V Knight; W Rawlinson; M Saville; S N Tabrizi; S M Garland; B Donovan; R Guy Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 3.295