Mark R Stenger1, Roxanne P Kerani, Heidi M Bauer, Nicole Burghardt, Greta L Anschuetz, Ellen Klingler, Christina M Schumacher, Julie Simon, Matthew Golden. 1. From the *Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; †University of Washington School of Medicine/Public Health-Seattle and King County, Seattle, WA; ‡California Department of Public Health, Sacramento, CA; §Philadelphia Department of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA; ¶New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, NY; ∥Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine/Baltimore City Health Department, Baltimore, MD; and **Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expedited partner therapy (EPT) has been shown to prevent reinfection in persons with gonorrhea and to plausibly reduce incidence. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends EPT as an option for treating sex partners of heterosexual patients. Few studies that examine how the reported use of this valuable intervention differs by patient and provider characteristics and by geography across multiple jurisdictions in the United States are currently available. METHODS: Case and patient interview data were obtained for a random sample of reported cases from 7 geographically disparate US jurisdictions participating in the Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Surveillance Network. These data were weighted to be representative of all reported gonorrhea cases in the 7 study sites. Patient receipt of EPT was estimated, and multivariate models were constructed separately to examine factors associated with receipt of EPT for heterosexuals and for men who have sex with men. RESULTS: Overall, 5.4% of patients diagnosed and reported as having gonorrhea reported receiving EPT to treat their sex partners. Heterosexual patients were more likely to have received EPT than men who have sex with men at 6.6% and 2.6% of patients, respectively. Receipt of EPT did not vary significantly by race, Hispanic ethnicity, or age for either group, although significant variation was observed in different provider settings, with patients from family planning/reproductive health and STD clinic settings more likely to report receiving EPT. Jurisdiction variations were also observed with heterosexual patients in Washington State most likely (35.5%), and those in New York City, Connecticut, and Philadelphia least likely to report receiving EPT (<2%). CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of one jurisdiction in the STD Surveillance Network actively promoting EPT use, patient-reported receipt of the intervention remains suboptimal across the network. Additional efforts to promote EPT, especially for patients diagnosed in private provider and hospital settings, are needed to realize the full potential of this valuable gonorrhea control intervention.
BACKGROUND: Expedited partner therapy (EPT) has been shown to prevent reinfection in persons with gonorrhea and to plausibly reduce incidence. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends EPT as an option for treating sex partners of heterosexual patients. Few studies that examine how the reported use of this valuable intervention differs by patient and provider characteristics and by geography across multiple jurisdictions in the United States are currently available. METHODS: Case and patient interview data were obtained for a random sample of reported cases from 7 geographically disparate US jurisdictions participating in the Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Surveillance Network. These data were weighted to be representative of all reported gonorrhea cases in the 7 study sites. Patient receipt of EPT was estimated, and multivariate models were constructed separately to examine factors associated with receipt of EPT for heterosexuals and for men who have sex with men. RESULTS: Overall, 5.4% of patients diagnosed and reported as having gonorrhea reported receiving EPT to treat their sex partners. Heterosexual patients were more likely to have received EPT than men who have sex with men at 6.6% and 2.6% of patients, respectively. Receipt of EPT did not vary significantly by race, Hispanic ethnicity, or age for either group, although significant variation was observed in different provider settings, with patients from family planning/reproductive health and STD clinic settings more likely to report receiving EPT. Jurisdiction variations were also observed with heterosexual patients in Washington State most likely (35.5%), and those in New York City, Connecticut, and Philadelphia least likely to report receiving EPT (<2%). CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of one jurisdiction in the STD Surveillance Network actively promoting EPT use, patient-reported receipt of the intervention remains suboptimal across the network. Additional efforts to promote EPT, especially for patients diagnosed in private provider and hospital settings, are needed to realize the full potential of this valuable gonorrhea control intervention.
Authors: Sally C Stephens; Kyle T Bernstein; Mitchell H Katz; Susan S Philip; Jeffrey D Klausner Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Matthew R Golden; William L H Whittington; H Hunter Handsfield; James P Hughes; Walter E Stamm; Matthew Hogben; Agnes Clark; Cheryl Malinski; Jennifer R L Helmers; Katherine K Thomas; King K Holmes Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-02-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Patricia Kissinger; Hamish Mohammed; Gwangi Richardson-Alston; Jami S Leichliter; Stephanie N Taylor; David H Martin; Thomas A Farley Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2005-07-19 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Cornelis A Rietmeijer; Jennifer Donnelly; Kyle T Bernstein; Jennifer M Bissette; Summer Martins; Preeti Pathela; Julia A Schillinger; Mark R Stenger; Hillard Weinstock; Lori M Newman Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Sarah L Guerry; Heidi M Bauer; Laura Packel; Michael Samuel; Joan Chow; Miriam Rhew; Gail Bolan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jennifer L Kerns; Heidi E Jones; Emilee J Pressman; Leigh Ann Fratarelli; Janet Garth; Carolyn L Westhoff Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Julia A Schillinger; Patricia Kissinger; Helene Calvet; William L H Whittington; Ray L Ransom; Maya R Sternberg; Stuart M Berman; Charlotte K Kent; David H Martin; M Kim Oh; H Hunter Handsfield; Gail Bolan; Lauri E Markowitz; J Dennis Fortenberry Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Matthew R Golden; Roxanne P Kerani; Mark Stenger; James P Hughes; Mark Aubin; Cheryl Malinski; King K Holmes Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Lindley A Barbee; Olusegun O Soge; David A Katz; Julia C Dombrowski; King K Holmes; Matthew R Golden Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Maria Trent; Hasiya Eihuri Yusuf; Julia Rowell; Jacquelin Toppins; Colin Woods; Steven Huettner; Camille Robinson; Errol L Fields; Arik V Marcell; Ralph DiClemente; Pamela Matson Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-05-25