Treatment efficacy for rectal Neisseria gonorrhoeae: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Addressing Sexually Transmitted Infections Due to Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the Present and Future

It was in the 1800s when the first public publications about the infection and treatment of gonorrhoea were released. However, the first prevention programmes were only published a hundred years later. In the 1940s, the concept of vaccination was introduced into clinical prevention programmes to address early sulphonamide resistance. Since then, tons of publications on Neisseria gonorrhoeae are undisputed, around 30,000 publications today. Currently, the situation seems to be just as it was in the last century, nothing has changed or improved. So, what are we doing wrong? And more importantly, what might we do? The review presented here aims to review the current situation regarding the resistance mechanisms, prevention programmes, treatments, and vaccines, with the challenge of better understanding this special pathogen. The authors have reviewed the last five years of advancements, knowledge, and perspectives for addressing the Neisseria gonorrhoeae issue, focusing on new therapeutic alternatives.

Effect on the Resistome of Dual vs Monotherapy for the Treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial (ResistAZM Trial)

Background

No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has compared the impact on the resistome of ceftriaxone (CRO) plus azithromycin (AZM) vs CRO for the treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoea (NG).

Methods

This was an open-label, single-center, RCT comparing the effect on the resistome of CRO plus AZM vs CRO for the treatment of NG. Men who have sex with men (MSM) with genital, anorectal, or pharyngeal NG infection were randomized into the CRO/AZM and CRO arms. Oral rinse and anorectal samples were taken for culture and resistome profiling at 2 visits (baseline and day 14). The primary outcome was the ratio of mean macrolide resistance determinants in anorectal samples from day 14 between arms.

Results

Twenty individuals were randomized into the CRO/AZM arm and 22 into the CRO arm. We found no significant difference in the mean macrolide resistance determinants in the day 14 anorectal samples between arms (ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.55-1.83; P = .102). The prevalence of baseline macrolide resistance was high (CRO/AZM arm = 95.00%; CRO arm = 90.91%).

Conclusions

We could not demonstrate a significant effect of dual CRO/AZM therapy on the resistome compared with CRO alone, likely due to a high baseline resistance to AZM. Interventions to prevent the emergence of antimicrobial resistance in MSM are needed.