Gonorrhea Reinfection Among Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinic Attendees in Baltimore, Maryland

Objectives: We hypothesized that an active follow-up program to assess for reinfection after gonorrhea treatment could be a useful disease control strategy. Goal: We evaluated an active follow-up and repeat testing program for all Baltimore sexually transmitted disease clinic patients diagnosed with...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Sexually transmitted diseases 2006-02, Vol.33 (2), p.80-86
Hauptverfasser: BERNSTEIN, KYLE T., ZENILMAN, JONATHAN, OLTHOFF, GLEN, MARSIGLIA, VINCENT C., ERBELDING, EMILY J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives: We hypothesized that an active follow-up program to assess for reinfection after gonorrhea treatment could be a useful disease control strategy. Goal: We evaluated an active follow-up and repeat testing program for all Baltimore sexually transmitted disease clinic patients diagnosed with gonorrhea. Study Design: From September 2003 to May 2004, all clients with a treated gonorrhea infection were advised to return 3 months later for repeat testing. If clients did not return as scheduled, field outreach was attempted. At follow-up visits, urine was tested for gonorrhea and consenting participants completed a behavioral survey. In addition, we reviewed morbidity records for any intercurrent gonorrhea infections reported during the project period. Results: Of the 667 participants diagnosed with gonorrhea at baseline, 54 had a gonorrhea reinfection diagnosed for an incidence of 13.8 per 100 person-years. One hundred seventy-eight (27%) either presented for a follow-up visit or were located through field efforts, and of these, 5 (2.8%) had gonorrhea detected on follow-up urine testing. No measured factors had predictive value in identifying gonorrhea reinfection. Conclusions: Although reinfection rates were high, we found that field staff intervention to increase follow-up testing rates did not identify a significant amount of repeat infections compared with passive surveillance.
ISSN:0148-5717
1537-4521
DOI:10.1097/01.olq.0000187233.53622.8a