Demographic and Epidemiological Characteristics Associated With Reduced Antimicrobial Susceptibility to Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the United States, Strengthening the US Response to Resistant Gonorrhea, 2018 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Jurisdictions participating in Strengthening the US Response to Resistant Gonorrhea (SURRG) implemented specimen collection for culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing from a sample of persons of all genders (at multiple anatomic sites) attending sexually transmitted disease clinics and community clinics. We describe the percentage and characteristics of patients whose isolates demonstrated reduced susceptibility (RS) to azithromycin, ceftriaxone, or cefixime. METHODS: We included patients from clinics that participated in SURRG whose isolates underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing by Etest. We defined RS as azithromycin minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) ≥2 µg/mL (AZM-RS), ceftriaxone MICs ≥0.125 µg/mL (CRO-RS), or cefixime MICs ≥0.25 µg/mL (CFX-RS). Patients with repeated infections appeared >1 time in the data. We calculated the frequency and percentage of patients with an isolate demonstrating RS by epidemiological characteristics. RESULTS: During the period 2018-2019, 10,013 patients from 8 jurisdictions provided 10,735 isolates. Among 10,013 patients, 11.0% (n = 1099) had ≥1 isolate with AZM-RS (range by jurisdiction, 2.5%-18.0%). Approximately 11.3% of 8771 of patients visiting sexually transmitted disease clinics and approximately 8.8% of 1242 patients visiting community clinics had an AZM-RS isolate. Nearly 6% of 1013 females had an AZM-RS isolate; among males, the percents of patients with an AZM-RS isolate were 17.7% among 4177 men who have sex only with men and 6.1% among 3581 men who have sex only with women. Few (0.4%) patients had isolates with CFX-RS (n = 40) or CRO-RS (n = 43). CONCLUSIONS: Although infections with reduced cephalosporin susceptibility were rare, AZM-RS infections were prevalent in this sample of patients in multiple jurisdictions and across gender and gender of sex partner categories.

Partner Referral by HIV-Infected Persons to Partner Counseling and Referral Services (PCRS) - Results from a Demonstration Project.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this article are to determine factors associated with refusal and agreement to provide partner information, and evaluate the effectiveness of referral approaches in offering PCRS. METHODS: Index clients from 5 sites that used 3 different PCRS approaches were interviewed to obtain demographic and risk characteristics and choice of partner referral method for PCRS. Logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with providing partner information. RESULTS: The percentage of index clients who refused to provide partner information varied by site (7% to 88%). Controlling for PCRS approach, index clients who were older than 25 years, male, or reported having male-male sex in the past 12 months were more likely (p <0.01) to refuse to provide partner information. Overall, 72% of named partners referred by index clients were located and offered PCRS. The proportion of partners who were located and offered PCRS differed by referral approach used, ranging from 38% using contract referral (index clients agree to notify their partners within a certain timeframe, else a disease intervention specialist or health care provider will notify them) to 98% using dual referral (index clients notify their partners with a disease intervention specialist or provider present). CONCLUSION: Success in obtaining partner information varied by the PCRS approach used and effectiveness in locating and notifying partners varied by the referral approach selected. These results provide valuable insights for enhancing partner services.

Incorporating rapid HIV testing into partner counseling and referral services.

OBJECTIVES: Partner counseling and referral services (PCRS) provide a unique opportunity to decrease transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by notifying sex and drug-injection partners of HIV-infected individuals of their exposure to HIV. We incorporated rapid HIV testing into PCRS to reduce barriers associated with conventional HIV testing and identify undiagnosed HIV infection within this high-risk population. METHODS: From April 2004 through June 2006, HIV-infected people (index clients) were interviewed, and their partners were notified of their potential exposure to HIV and offered rapid HIV testing at six sites in the United States. The numbers of index clients participating and the numbers of partners interviewed and tested were compared by site. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 2,678 index clients were identified, of whom 779 (29%) provided partner locating information. A total of 1,048 partners were elicited, of whom 463 (44%) were both interviewed and tested for HIV. Thirty-seven partners (8%) were newly diagnosed with HIV. The number of index clients interviewed to identify one partner with newly diagnosed HIV infection ranged from 10 to 137 at the participating sites. CONCLUSIONS: PCRS provides testing and prevention services to people at high risk for HIV infection. Incorporating rapid HIV testing into PCRS and identifying previously undiagnosed infections likely confer individual and public health benefits. Further evaluation is needed to determine the best methods of identifying partners with previously unrecognized HIV infection.