Barriers and Motives for Complying With "Sexual Distancing" Among Men Who Have Sex With Men During the First COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown in Amsterdam: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Between March 15 and May 31, 2020, the Dutch government imposed lockdown and health measures to curb the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As part of social distancing, sexual distancing was one of these measures. Sexual distancing implied refraining from sex with partners outside of one's household. We aimed to elucidate barriers and motives for complying with sexual distancing and related factors that could have led to (non)compliance among men who have sex with men. METHODS: In this exploratory qualitative study, we interviewed men who have sex with men who visited the center for sexual health in Amsterdam during the first COVID-19 lockdown using a semistructured interview guide from March to May 2020. We interviewed both men who complied and did not comply with sexual distancing. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an open-coding process in MAXQDA. RESULTS: We included 18 noncompliers and 4 compliers to COVID-19 sexual distancing. Barriers to compliance were the following: lack of information on, or understanding of, the need for sexual distancing; being single; having had an active sex life before COVID-19; a high perceived importance of the social aspect of sex; a strong urge for sex; using sex to cope with the negative impact of the pandemic; being under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and not perceiving COVID-19 as a serious health threat. Motives for compliance were the following: perceiving COVID-19 as a serious health threat, direct confrontation with critically ill COVID-19 patients, protecting someone dear from COVID-19, and being convinced of the importance of social and/or sexual distancing measures. CONCLUSIONS: Information on sexual distancing needs to be made more explicit, accessible, understandable, inclusive, customized to individual barriers, and relatable to the key populations. This may improve the effectiveness of measures and health recommendations in both the current COVID-19 pandemic and future respiratory outbreaks.

Pitfalls in the diagnosis and management of inguinal lymphogranuloma venereum: important lessons from a case series.

Current lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) guidelines mainly focus on anorectal infections. Inguinal LGV infections have been rare in the current epidemic among men who have sex with men (MSM), but might require a different approach not yet recommended in current guidelines for the treatment and diagnosis of LGV. We describe 4 inguinal LGV cases. Three MSM developed inguinal LGV infection several weeks after a previous consultation, of which two had received azithromycin after being notified for LGV. Three failed the recommended 21 days doxycycline treatment. These inguinal LGV cases highlight 3 pitfalls in the current standard management of LGV: (1) Urethral chlamydia infections in MSM can be caused by LGV biovars that in contrast to non-LGV biovars require prolonged antibiotic therapy. (2) The recommended one gram azithromycin contact treatment seems insufficient to prevent established infections. (3) Inguinal LGV may require prolonged courses of doxycycline, exceeding the currently advised 21 days regimen.

Urethral lymphogranuloma venereum infections in men with anorectal lymphogranuloma venereum and their partners: the missing link in the current epidemic?

Urethral lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) is not screened routinely. We found that in 341 men having sex with men with anorectal LGV, 7 (2.1%) had concurrent urethral LGV. Among 59 partners, 4 (6.8%) had urethral LGV infections. Urethral LGV is common, probably key in transmission, and missed in current routine LGV screening algorithms.

Anorectal and inguinal lymphogranuloma venereum among men who have sex with men in Amsterdam, The Netherlands: trends over time, symptomatology and concurrent infections.

OBJECTIVES: To examine lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) trends over time among men who have sex with men (MSM) visiting the Amsterdam sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinic; to investigate anal LGV symptomatology; and to examine the positivity and characteristics of anorectal and inguinal LGV. METHODS: We included MSM consultations from whom a swab (from anorectum, bubo or an genital ulcer) was taken for Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) screening. Anorectal swabs were taken from all MSM who reported receptive anorectal intercourse in the preceding 6 months. Ct positive samples were further tested with a pmpH PCR to identify L-genovars. Patient symptoms, clinical and anoscopic inflammatory signs, and STI co-infections were noted; Gram-stained anorectal mucosal smears were examined. RESULTS: Between January 2005 and June 2012, 48 570 consultations among MSM were conducted. In 3628/35 650 visits, anorectal Ct infections were diagnosed, including 411 anal LGV (1.2%). Moreover, 65/1649 genital ulcer swabs were Ct positive; 10 were inguinal LGV (0.6%) Since January 2011 a significant increase in the positivity of LGV occurred (p<0.0001). 89 (27.2%) anorectal LGV cases were asymptomatic. HIV prevalence among anorectal LGV cases was significantly higher (p=0.008) than among inguinal LGV cases. STI co-morbidity in anorectal LGV cases remained invariably high during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Since January 2011, LGV positivity in MSM consultations in Amsterdam has risen significantly. The great majority comprise anal LGV; inguinal LGV is rare. Anal LGV is asymptomatic in a quarter of cases. In all MSM with anal Ct infections LGV should be excluded, irrespective of symptoms or inflammatory signs.