S'abonner

Routine universal testing versus selective or incidental testing for oropharyngeal Neisseria gonorrhoeae in women in the Netherlands: a retrospective cohort study - 27/05/21

Doi : 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30594-6 
Geneviève A F S van Liere, PhD a, Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers, PhD a, b, Sophie Kuizenga-Wessel, PhD e, Petra F G Wolffs, PhD c, Christian J P A Hoebe, ProfPhD a, c, d,
a Department of Sexual Health, Infectious Diseases and Environmental Health, South Limburg Public Health Service, Heerlen, Netherlands 
b Department of Health Promotion, Care and Public Health Research Institute, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands 
c Department of Medical Microbiology, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands 
d Department of Social Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands 
e Department of Sexual Health, Public Health Service Haaglanden, The Hague, Netherlands 

* Correspondence to: Prof Christian J P A Hoebe, Department of Sexual Health, Infectious Diseases and Environmental Health, South Limburg Public Health Service, 6411 TE Heerlen, Netherlands Department of Sexual Health Infectious Diseases and Environmental Health South Limburg Public Health Service Heerlen TE 6411 Netherlands

Summary

Background

Women are not routinely tested for oropharyngeal Neisseria gonorrhoeae. At present, selective testing based on sexual behaviour or risk groups is advocated by international guidelines. Many oropharyngeal infections are asymptomatic and thus remain undetected, establishing a reservoir for ongoing transmission. Data on effectiveness of routine testing are scarce, thus we aimed to assess the optimal testing strategy for oropharyngeal N gonorrhoeae in women.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we used surveillance data obtained from all sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics in the Netherlands between Jan 1, 2008, and Dec 31, 2017. We collected consultation-level data, and individual-level patient data from 2016 onwards, on sociodemographic characteristics, sexual behaviour in the past 6 months, self-reported symptoms, and STI diagnoses. We compared the prevalence of oropharyngeal N gonorrhoeae between women who attended clinics that offered routine universal testing (defined as >85% of women tested per clinic–year) and women who attended clinics that offered selective testing (defined as 5–85% of women tested per clinic–year) or incidental testing (<5% of women tested per clinic–year). We calculated the number of infections missed by selective testing by extrapolating prevalence for the routine universal testing group to that of weighted and unweighted samples of all selectively tested women. We used multivariable generalised estimating equations to identify independent risk factors for oropharyngeal N gonorrhoeae to identify the optimal selective testing strategy.

Findings

554 266 consultations with at least one N gonorrhoeae test were recorded, of which 545 750 consultations (including repeat visits) were included in the analyses. Of 545 750 consultations, routine universal testing was used in 57 359 (10·5%), selective testing in 444 283 (81·4%), and incidental testing in 44 108 (8·1%). The prevalence of oropharyngeal N gonorrhoeae was 1·4% (95% CI 1·3–1·5; 703 of 50 962 consultations) in the routine testing group compared with 1·4% (1·3–1·5; 1858 of 132 276) in the selective testing group (p=0·68) and 2·8% (1·9–3·9; 30 of 1088) in the incidental testing group (p<0·0001). The prevalence of oropharyngeal-only infections was 47·7% (335 of 703 women) in the routine testing group, 53·3% (991 of 1858) in the selective testing group, and 60·0% (18 of 30) in the incidental testing group. Selective testing would have missed an estimated 4363 (70%; 95% CI 69–71) of all 6221 oropharyngeal N gonorrhoeae infections. Independent risk factors for oropharyngeal N gonorrhoeae were being notified for any STI (adjusted odds ratio 2·1, 95% CI 1·5–3·0), reporting sex work (4·0, 2·3–6·7), and having concurrent genital (51·5, 34·1–77·7) or anorectal (2·6, 1·4–4·8) N gonorrhoeae. Selective testing of women notified for any STI, or who reported sex work, would have led to 5418 (27·8%) of 19 455 women being tested and would have identified 119 (55·6%) of 214 oropharyngeal N gonorrhoeae infections.

Interpretation

Selective testing potentially misses more than two-thirds of oropharyngeal N gonorrhoeae infections in women, of whom half have oropharyngeal infections without concurrent genital or anorectal infections. Using independent risk factors for oropharyngeal infection to guide testing is a minimal testing strategy. Routine universal testing is the optimum scenario to detect the majority of infections. However, future studies are needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of routine testing and its effect on antimicrobial resistance.

Funding

Public Health Service South Limburg.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Plan


© 2021  Elsevier Ltd. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 21 - N° 6

P. 858-867 - juin 2021 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions in ambulatory care in China: a nationwide descriptive database study
  • Houyu Zhao, Li Wei, Hui Li, Mei Zhang, Bin Cao, Jiaming Bian, Siyan Zhan
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Immunity against diphtheria among children aged 5–17 years in India, 2017–18: a cross-sectional, population-based serosurvey
  • Manoj V Murhekar, Pattabi Kamaraj, Muthusamy Santhosh Kumar, Siraj Ahmed Khan, Ramesh Reddy Allam, Pradip V Barde, Bhagirathi Dwibedi, Suman Kanungo, Uday Mohan, Suman Sundar Mohanty, Subarna Roy, Vivek Sagar, Deepali Savargaonkar, Babasaheb V Tandale, Roshan Kamal Topno, C P Girish Kumar, Ramasamy Sabarinathan, Sailaja Bitragunta, Gagandeep Singh Grover, P V M Lakshmi, Chandra Mauli Mishra, Provash Sadhukhan, Prakash Kumar Sahoo, Shivendra Kumar Singh, Chander Prakash Yadav, Rajesh Kumar, Shanta Dutta, G S Toteja, Nivedita Gupta, Sanjay M Mehendale, ICMR Serosurvey Group, T Karunakaran, C Govindhasamy, T Daniel Rajasekar, A Jeyakumar, A Suresh, D Augustine, P Ashok Kumar, Annamma Jose, R Sivakumar, JW Banerjee John

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.