Sexually transmitted diseases · 2010
Expedited partner therapy: a robust intervention.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка службы здравоохранения 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.
Shiely Frances, Hayes Kevin, Thomas Katherine K, Kerani Roxanne P, Hughes James P, Whittington William L H, Holmes King K, Handsfield H Hunter, Hogben Matthew, Golden Matthew R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Expedited partner therapy (EPT) has been shown to reduce the risk of persistent or recurrent gonorrhea and chlamydial infection in heterosexuals, and to increase the proportion of sex partners receiving treatment. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the consistency of EPT's effect across sociodemographic and behavioral subgroups.
METHODS: Subset analyses from a randomized controlled trial compared EPT to standard partner referral (SPR) in sociodemographic and behaviorally defined subgroups. Outcomes included persistent or recurrent infection in study participants and participants' report that their partners received treatment.
RESULTS: Reinfection risk was lower among EPT recipients than nonrecipients in 21 of 22 subgroups, with relative risks (RRs) varying from 0.4 to 0.94. Compared to persons receiving SPR, persons receiving EPT were more likely to report that their partners were very likely to have been treated in 33 of 34 subgroups (RRs range, 1.03-1.36). Although EPT reduced the risk of persistent or recurrent infection somewhat more in men (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.3-1.08) than in women (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07) and more in persons with gonorrhea (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.78) than those with chlamydial infection (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63-1.07), the RR of partners being treated associated with EPT was similar in men (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39) and women (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.10-1.27), and also in persons with gonorrhea (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.80-2.23) and chlamydial infection (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.07-1.66).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, EPT is shown to be superior to SPR across a wide spectrum of sociodemographic and behaviorally defined subgroups.
METHODS: Subset analyses from a randomized controlled trial compared EPT to standard partner referral (SPR) in sociodemographic and behaviorally defined subgroups. Outcomes included persistent or recurrent infection in study participants and participants' report that their partners received treatment.
RESULTS: Reinfection risk was lower among EPT recipients than nonrecipients in 21 of 22 subgroups, with relative risks (RRs) varying from 0.4 to 0.94. Compared to persons receiving SPR, persons receiving EPT were more likely to report that their partners were very likely to have been treated in 33 of 34 subgroups (RRs range, 1.03-1.36). Although EPT reduced the risk of persistent or recurrent infection somewhat more in men (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.3-1.08) than in women (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07) and more in persons with gonorrhea (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.78) than those with chlamydial infection (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63-1.07), the RR of partners being treated associated with EPT was similar in men (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39) and women (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.10-1.27), and also in persons with gonorrhea (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.80-2.23) and chlamydial infection (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.07-1.66).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, EPT is shown to be superior to SPR across a wide spectrum of sociodemographic and behaviorally defined subgroups.