Last data update: May 06, 2024. (Total: 46732 publications since 2009)
Records 1-5 (of 5 Records) |
Query Trace: Pugsley RA[original query] |
---|
Evaluation of surveillance system changes to improve detection of disseminated gonococcal infections in Virginia, 2018 to 2021
Pugsley RA , Gadju G , Young K , Rose C , Haugan N , Vasiliu O . Sex Transm Dis 2024 51 (3) 171-177 BACKGROUND: Disseminated gonococcal infection (DGI), a complication of untreated gonorrhea, is rarely reported through routine surveillance. We sought to improve local surveillance system capacity to estimate and monitor the incidence of DGI in Virginia. METHODS: We modified surveillance protocols to identify possible DGI cases using information extracted from gonorrhea case reports and performed provider follow-up using standardized case report forms to confirm DGI diagnosis and collect clinical information. Suspect cases included those with a laboratory report indicating sterile site of specimen collection (e.g., blood, synovial fluid) and/or intravenous (IV) treatment. We performed descriptive analyses to summarize the characteristics of suspect and confirmed DGIs and estimated incidence. RESULTS: After piloting protocols in 2018 to 2019, we identified 405 suspect DGI cases from 29,294 gonorrhea cases reported in 2020 to 2021 (1.4%). We initiated investigations for 298 (73.6%) of the suspect cases, received provider responses for 105 (25.9%), and confirmed 19 DGI cases (4.7%). Positive laboratory reports from nonmucosal sites were the most reliable predictor of confirmed DGI status, but most were not confirmed as DGI even when provider follow-up was successful. The confirmed and estimated incidence of DGI were 0.06% and 0.22%, respectively. Sixteen (84%) of the confirmed cases were older than 25 years, 3 (16%) were HIV positive, and approximately half were male and non-Hispanic Black. Most (15 [74%]) were hospitalized, and common manifestations included septic arthritis and bacteremia. CONCLUSIONS: We improved surveillance for DGI in Virginia while incurring minor programmatic costs. Additional efforts to improve the completeness and quality of surveillance data for DGI are needed. |
Effectiveness of syphilis partner notification after adjusting for treatment dates, 7 jurisdictions
Cope AB , Bernstein KT , Matthias J , Rahman M , Diesel JC , Pugsley RA , Schillinger JA , Chew Ng RA , Klingler EJ , Mobley VL , Samoff E , Peterman TA . Sex Transm Dis 2021 49 (2) 160-165 INTRODUCTION: Disease intervention specialists (DIS) prevent syphilis by assuring treatment for patients' sex partners through partner notification (PN). Different interpretations of how to measure partners treated due to DIS efforts complicates PN evaluation. We measured PN impact by counting partners treated for syphilis after DIS interviewed the patient. METHODS: We reviewed data from early syphilis cases reported during 2015-2017 in seven jurisdictions. We compared infected partners brought to treatment using: 1) DIS-assigned disposition codes or 2) all infected partners treated 0-90 days after the patient's interview (adjusted treatment estimate). Stratified analyses assessed patient characteristics associated with the adjusted treatment estimate. RESULTS: DIS interviewed 23,613 patients who reported 20,890 partners with locating information. Many of the 3,569 (17.1%) partners classified by DIS as brought to treatment were treated before the patient was interviewed. There were 2,359 (11.3%) partners treated 0-90 days after the patient's interview. Treatment estimates were more consistent between programs when measured using our adjusted estimates (range 6.1%-14.8% per patient interviewed) compared to DIS-assigned disposition (range 6.1%-28.3%). Treatment of >1 partner occurred after 9.0% of interviews and was more likely if the patient was a woman (17.9%), aged <25 years (12.6%), interviewed ≤7 days from diagnosis (13.9%), HIV negative (12.6%), or had no reported history of syphilis (9.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Counting infected partners treated 0-90 days after interview reduced variability in reporting and facilitates quality assurance. Identifying programs and DIS who are particularly good at finding and treating partners could improve program impact. |
Unnamed partners from syphilis partner services interviews, 7 jurisdictions
Cope AB , Bernstein K , Matthias J , Rahman M , Diesel J , Pugsley RA , Schillinger JA , Chew Ng RA , Sachdev D , Shaw R , Nguyen TQ , Klingler EJ , Mobley VL , Samoff E , Peterman TA . Sex Transm Dis 2020 47 (12) 811-818 BACKGROUND: Reducing transmission depends on the percentage of infected partners treated; if many are missed, impact on transmission will be low. Traditional partner services metrics evaluate the number of partners found and treated. We estimated the proportion of partners of syphilis patients not locatable for intervention. METHODS: We reviewed records of early syphilis cases (primary, secondary, early latent) reported during 2015-2017 in seven jurisdictions (Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, New York City, and San Francisco). Among interviewed syphilis patients, we determined the proportion who reported named partners (with locating information), reported unnamed partners (no locating information), and did not report partners. For patients with no reported partners, we estimated their range of unreported partners to be between one and the average number of partners for patients who reported partners. RESULTS: Among 29,719 syphilis patients, 23,613 (80%) were interviewed and 18,581 (63%) reported 84,224 sex partners (average=4.5; 20,853 (25%) named and 63,371 (75%) unnamed). An estimated 11,138 to 54,521 partners were unreported. Thus, 74,509 to 117,892 (of 95,362 to 138,745) partners were not reached by partner services (78-85%). Among interviewed patients, 71% reported ≥1 unnamed partner or reported no partners; this proportion was higher for men who reported sex with men [MSM] (75%), compared to men who reported sex with women only (65%), and women (44%). CONCLUSION: Approximately 80% of sex partners were either unnamed or unreported. Partner services may be less successful at interrupting transmission in MSM networks where a higher proportion of partners are unnamed or unreported. |
Presumptive and follow-up treatment for gonorrhea and chlamydia among patients attending public health department clinics in Virginia, 2016
Pugsley RA , Peterman TA . Sex Transm Dis 2019 46 (3) 199-205 BACKGROUND: Presumptive antibiotic treatment is common for suspected chlamydia (CT) and gonorrhea (GC) infections before laboratory confirmation to prevent complications, reduce loss-to-follow-up, and interrupt transmission. We assessed this practice in sexually transmitted disease (STD) and family planning clinics. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from clinics in Virginia in 2016 using administrative data merged with electronic laboratory reporting data. After stratifying by patient and clinic characteristics, we calculated how often patients with positive CT/GC tests were treated presumptively or during a follow-up visit, and how many patients with negative tests were treated presumptively. RESULTS: Of 63,889 patient visits with valid laboratory results from 131 clinics, 13% tested positive for CT or GC. Overall, presumptive treatment was given to 45.2% of persons with positive tests and 10.1% of persons with negative tests. Among the 9443 patients presumptively treated, 40.7% had positive test results. Presumptive treatment was more common in STD clinics compared with family planning clinics (22% vs. 4%) and for males with positive tests compared to females (65% vs. 24%); smaller variations were observed across age, race/ethnicity, and diagnosis categories. Twenty-six percent of patients with positive tests who were not treated presumptively had no treatment recorded within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Presumptive treatment for CT/GC was commonly used in this clinic population. It improved treatment coverage and reduced time to treatment, though some uninfected persons were treated. The impact of presumptive treatment on partner notification and treatment requires further study. |
Reactor grids for prioritizing syphilis investigations: Are primary syphilis cases being missed
Cha S , Matthias JM , Rahman M , Schillinger JA , Furness BW , Pugsley RA , Kidd S , Bernstein KT , Peterman TA . Sex Transm Dis 2018 45 (10) 648-654 BACKGROUND: Health departments prioritize investigations of reported reactive serologic tests based on age, gender, and titer using reactor grids. We wondered how reactor grids are used in different programs, and if administratively closing investigations of low-titer tests could lead to missed primary syphilis cases. METHODS: We obtained a convenience sample of reactor grids from 13 health departments. Interviews with staff from several jurisdictions described the role of grids in surveillance and intervention. From 5 jurisdictions, trends in reactive nontreponemal tests and syphilis cases over time (2006-2015) were assessed by gender, age, and titer. In addition, nationally-reported primary syphilis cases (2013-2015) were analyzed to determine what proportion had low titers (</=1:4) that might be administratively closed by grids without further investigation. RESULTS: Grids and follow-up approaches varied widely. Health departments in the study received a total of 48,573 to 496,503 reactive serologies over a 10-year period (3044-57,242 per year). In 2006 to 2015, the number of reactive serologies increased 37% to 169%. Increases were largely driven by tests for men although the ratios of tests per reported case remained stable over time. Almost one quarter of reported primary syphilis had low titers that would be excluded by most grids. The number of potentially missed primary syphilis cases varied by gender and age with 41- to 54-year-old men accounting for most. CONCLUSIONS: Reactor grids that close tests with low titers or from older individuals may miss some primary syphilis cases. Automatic, computerized record searches of all reactive serologic tests could help improve prioritization. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 06, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure