Sexually transmitted diseases · 2021
Extragenital Screening of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae Among Women in the College Health Setting.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Huxta Rebecca A, Soniyi Omotoyosi, Halbritter Ashlee, Nguyen Giang T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite high frequencies of oral and receptive anal intercourse among young women, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend routine oropharyngeal or anorectal screening for CT and GC. Risk-based extragenital screening of women has not been adopted at the majority of college health centers, and existing research has not focused on the female or college population.
METHODS: We examined health records of women at a college health center in a large urban university for 3 years to evaluate the effectiveness of CT and GC screening. We also evaluated the proportion of CT and GC infections that would have been missed if risk-based extragenital screening was not performed. Decisions to screen at extragenital sites were based on patient-reported risk behavior.
RESULTS: For 8027 unique chlamydia screens and 7907 unique gonorrhea screens, approximately 20% of the visits used extragenital screening in response to self-reported risk behaviors. More than 44% of patients were non-Hispanic White, and approximately 48% fell within the 20- to 24-year age group. The case positivity rates for CT were 2.85% with urogenital-only screening and 1.30% with risk-prompted extragenital screening (1.1% throat, 4.3% rectal). The case positivity rates for GC were 0.11% with urogenital-only screening and 0.37% with risk-prompted extragenital screening (0.37% throat, 0% rectal). If the college health center had relied solely on urogenital screening rather than adding risk-based extragenital screening, 4.41% of CT infections would have been missed and 28.57% of GC infections would have been missed.
CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 of 22 CT infections and nearly 1 of 3 GC infections would have been missed without extragenital screening in this analysis of college women. Inclusion of risk-prompted extragenital screening in asymptomatic STD screening protocols can help clinicians diagnose CT and GC infections that would be have been missed with urogenital-only screening. Although rectal GC infections among women seem to be less common, oropharyngeal testing, in particular, for GC is suggested for women based on sexual risk. However, clinicians might only identify these risks if they ask patients directly about these potential exposures. Because guidelines exist only for men, future studies should focus on extragenital screening in college women to build the evidence that this particular population of patients may benefit from this practice, given the high risk of STDs in young adults.
METHODS: We examined health records of women at a college health center in a large urban university for 3 years to evaluate the effectiveness of CT and GC screening. We also evaluated the proportion of CT and GC infections that would have been missed if risk-based extragenital screening was not performed. Decisions to screen at extragenital sites were based on patient-reported risk behavior.
RESULTS: For 8027 unique chlamydia screens and 7907 unique gonorrhea screens, approximately 20% of the visits used extragenital screening in response to self-reported risk behaviors. More than 44% of patients were non-Hispanic White, and approximately 48% fell within the 20- to 24-year age group. The case positivity rates for CT were 2.85% with urogenital-only screening and 1.30% with risk-prompted extragenital screening (1.1% throat, 4.3% rectal). The case positivity rates for GC were 0.11% with urogenital-only screening and 0.37% with risk-prompted extragenital screening (0.37% throat, 0% rectal). If the college health center had relied solely on urogenital screening rather than adding risk-based extragenital screening, 4.41% of CT infections would have been missed and 28.57% of GC infections would have been missed.
CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 of 22 CT infections and nearly 1 of 3 GC infections would have been missed without extragenital screening in this analysis of college women. Inclusion of risk-prompted extragenital screening in asymptomatic STD screening protocols can help clinicians diagnose CT and GC infections that would be have been missed with urogenital-only screening. Although rectal GC infections among women seem to be less common, oropharyngeal testing, in particular, for GC is suggested for women based on sexual risk. However, clinicians might only identify these risks if they ask patients directly about these potential exposures. Because guidelines exist only for men, future studies should focus on extragenital screening in college women to build the evidence that this particular population of patients may benefit from this practice, given the high risk of STDs in young adults.