Sexually transmitted diseases · 2008
Lymphogranuloma venereum proctitis in men who have sex with men is associated with anal enema use and high-risk behavior.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
de Vries Henry J C, van der Bij Akke K, Fennema Johan S A, Smit Colette, de Wolf Frank, Prins Maria, Coutinho Roel A, Morré Servaas A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: In the industrialized world, lymphogranuloma venereum proctitis (LGVP) has been reported only in men who have sex with men. Factors responsible for the outbreak remain to be elucidated.
GOAL: The goal of the present work was to elucidate risk factors associated with LGVP.
STUDY DESIGN: The study design comprised a cross-sectional study including 32 men with LGVP and 93 men without LGVP (22 with gonorrheal proctitis, 30 with a non-LGV chlamydial proctitis, and 41 with proctitis of unknown etiology). Factors associated with LGVP were analyzed by (multinomial) logistic regression.
RESULTS: Comparing men with LGVP with men without LGVP, factors significantly associated with higher risk of LGVP in multivariate analyses were as follows: anal enema use [odds ratio (OR): 7.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.6-23.2], having sex on sex parties (OR: 5.7, 95% CI: 1.5-21.8), and having sex with human immunodeficiency virus-positive partners (OR: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.1-9.3). Evaluating the 4 proctitis groups separately in a multinomial logistic regression model, similar associations between anal enema use and LGVP were found. Men with non-LGV chlamydial proctitis showed less risk behavior than men with LGVP. No substantial difference in risk behavior was found, except for attending sex parties, between men with LGVP, and gonorrheal proctitis or proctitis of unknown etiology.
CONCLUSIONS: Apart from men with LGVP, men with gonorrheal proctitis or proctitis of unknown etiology exhibit high risk behavior. Enema use seems to play a key role in transmission of LGVP, and needs further investigation.
GOAL: The goal of the present work was to elucidate risk factors associated with LGVP.
STUDY DESIGN: The study design comprised a cross-sectional study including 32 men with LGVP and 93 men without LGVP (22 with gonorrheal proctitis, 30 with a non-LGV chlamydial proctitis, and 41 with proctitis of unknown etiology). Factors associated with LGVP were analyzed by (multinomial) logistic regression.
RESULTS: Comparing men with LGVP with men without LGVP, factors significantly associated with higher risk of LGVP in multivariate analyses were as follows: anal enema use [odds ratio (OR): 7.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.6-23.2], having sex on sex parties (OR: 5.7, 95% CI: 1.5-21.8), and having sex with human immunodeficiency virus-positive partners (OR: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.1-9.3). Evaluating the 4 proctitis groups separately in a multinomial logistic regression model, similar associations between anal enema use and LGVP were found. Men with non-LGV chlamydial proctitis showed less risk behavior than men with LGVP. No substantial difference in risk behavior was found, except for attending sex parties, between men with LGVP, and gonorrheal proctitis or proctitis of unknown etiology.
CONCLUSIONS: Apart from men with LGVP, men with gonorrheal proctitis or proctitis of unknown etiology exhibit high risk behavior. Enema use seems to play a key role in transmission of LGVP, and needs further investigation.