Sampling technique and detection rates of oropharyngeal and anorectal gonorrhoea using nucleic acid amplification tests in men who have sex with men

Gonorrhoea: a systematic review of prevalence reporting globally

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends periodic gonorrhoea prevalence assessments in the general population or proxies thereof (including pregnant women, women attending family planning clinics, military recruits, and men undergoing employment physicals for example) and in population groups at increased risk, including men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) and sex workers.

METHOD

We evaluated reported prevalence data, including estimates from proxy general population samples to reflect the WHO recommendations. We describe the outcomes from the general population country-by-country and extend previous reviews to include MSM, sex workers, and extragenital infections.

RESULT AND CONCLUSION

In our systematic search, 2015 titles were reviewed (January 2010-April 2019) and 174 full-text publications were included. National, population-based prevalence data were identified in only four countries (the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Peru, New Caledonia) and local population-based estimates were reported in areas within five countries (China, South Africa, Brazil, Benin, and Malawi). The remaining studies identified only reported test positivity from non-probability, proxy general population samples. Due to the diversity of the reviewed studies, detailed comparison across studies was not possible. In MSM, data were identified from 64 studies in 25 countries. Rectal infection rates were generally higher than urogenital or pharyngeal infection rates, where extragenital testing was conducted. Data on sex workers were identified from 41 studies in 23 countries; rates in female sex workers were high. Current prevalence monitoring was shown to be highly suboptimal worldwide. Serial prevalence monitoring of critical epidemiological variables, and guidelines to optimize prevalence study conduct and reporting beyond antenatal settings are recommended.

Swab-yourself Trial With Economic Monitoring and Testing for Infections Collectively (SYSTEMATIC): Part 1. A Diagnostic Accuracy and Cost-effectiveness Study Comparing Clinician-taken vs Self-taken Rectal and Pharyngeal Samples for the Diagnosis of Gonorrhea and Chlamydia

BACKGROUND

Urogenital testing misses extragenital Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT). Extragenital self-sampling is frequently undertaken despite no robust randomized, controlled trial evidence of efficacy. We compared clinician-taken rectal and pharyngeal samples with self-taken samples for diagnostic accuracy and cost in men who have sex with men (MSM) and in females.

METHODS

This was a prospective convenience sample from a UK sexual health clinic. We randomized the order of clinician- and self-taken samples from the pharynx and rectum, plus first catch urine (MSM) and vulvovaginal swabs (females), for NG/CT detection.

RESULTS

Of 1793 participants (1284 females, 509 MSM), 116 had NG detected (75 urogenital, 83 rectum, 72 pharynx); 9.4% infected females and 67.3% MSM were urogenital-negative. A total of 276 had CT detected (217 urogenital, 249 rectum, 63 pharynx); 13.1% infected females and 71.8% MSM were urogenital-negative. Sexual history did not identify those with rectal infections. There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy between clinician- and self-taken samples from the rectum or pharynx. Clinicians took swabs more quickly than participants, so costs were lower. However, in asymptomatic people, nonqualified clinicians would oversee self-swabbing making these costs lower.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in the diagnostic accuracy of clinician-taken compared with self-taken extragenital samples. Sexual history did not identify those with rectal infections, so individuals should have extragenital clinician- or self-taken samples. Clinician-taken swabs cost less than self-taken swabs; however, in asymptomatic people or those who perform home testing, the costs would be lower than for clinician-taken swabs.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT02371109.

Risk factors for oropharyngeal gonorrhoea in men who have sex with men: an age-matched case-control study

OBJECTIVES

Oropharyngeal gonorrhoea is common among men who have sex with men (MSM). We aimed to clarify which oral sex practices were independent risk factors for oropharyngeal gonorrhoea: tongue kissing, receptive oro-penile sex (fellatio) or insertive oro-anal sex (rimming), and whether daily use of mouthwash and recent antibiotic use was protective.

METHODS

In 2015, we conducted an age-matched case-control study of MSM who attended the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre. Cases had tested positive for oropharyngeal gonorrhoea by nucleic acid amplification testing, and controls had tested negative. Questionnaire items included tongue kissing, oral sex practices, condom use, recent antibiotic use, mouthwash use and alcohol consumption.

RESULTS

We identified 177 cases, age matched to 354 controls. In univariable analyses, cases were 1.90 times (95% CI 1.13 to 3.20) more likely than controls to have had casual sexual partners (CSP) in the preceding 3 months, were 2.17 times (95% CI 1.31 to 3.59) more likely to have kissed CSP and were 2.04 times (95% CI 1.26 to 3.30) more likely to have had receptive oro-penile sex with CSP. Oropharyngeal gonorrhoea was not associated with insertive oro-anal sex or mouthwash use. The number of CSP for tongue kissing and receptive oral sex and total CSP were highly correlated, and in multivariable analysis neither kissing nor receptive oro-penile sex was significantly associated with having oropharyngeal gonorrhoea, after adjusting for total number of CSP.

CONCLUSIONS

The finding that oropharyngeal gonorrhoea was associated with a higher number of sexual partners but not specific sexual practices highlights the need for further research in the area of gonorrhoea transmission to define the probability of transmission from specific sex acts.