Background: We summarised data from studies reporting on macrolide and fluoroquinolone resistanceassociated mutations in Mycoplasma genitalium, examined temporal trends, and associations with geographical location, sex and population.
IntroductionAustralia recorded its first case of COVID-19 in late January 2020. On 22P March 2020, amid increasing daily case numbers, the Australian Government implemented lockdown restrictions to help ‘flatten the curve’. Our study aimed to understand the impact of lockdown restrictions on sexual and reproductive health. Here we focus on sexual practices.MethodsAn online survey was open from the 23PP April 2020 to 11P May 2020. Participants were recruited online via social media and other networks and were asked to report on their sexual practices in 2019 and during lockdown. Logistic regression was used to calculate the difference (diff) (including 95% CIs) in the proportion of sex practices between time periods.ResultsOf the 1187 who commenced the survey, 965 (81.3%) completed it. Overall, 70% were female and 66.3% were aged 18–29 years. Most (53.5%) reported less sex during lockdown than in 2019. Compared with 2019, participants were more likely to report sex with a spouse (35.3% vs 41.7%; diff=6.4%; 95% CI 3.6 to 9.2) and less likely to report sex with a girl/boyfriend (45.1% vs 41.8%; diff=−3.3%; 95% CI −7.0 to -0.4) or with casual hook-up (31.4% vs 7.8%; 95% CI −26.9 to -19.8). Solo sex activities increased; 14.6% (123/840) reported using sex toys more often and 26.0% (218/838) reported masturbating more often. Dating app use decreased during lockdown compared with 2019 (42.1% vs 27.3%; diff= −14.8%; 95% CI −17.6 to -11.9). Using dating apps for chatting/texting (89.8% vs 94.5%; diff=4.7%; 95% CI 1.0 to 8.5) and for setting up virtual dates (2.6% vs 17.2%; diff=14.6%; 95% CI 10.1 to 19.2) increased during lockdown.ConclusionAlthough significant declines in sexual activity during lockdown were reported, people did not completely stop engaging in sexual activities, highlighting the importance of ensuring availability of normal sexual and reproductive health services during global emergencies.
Background
We aimed to examine the impact of lockdown on sexually transmitted infection (STI) diagnoses and access to a public sexual health service in the COVID-19 pandemic in Melbourne, Australia.
Methods
The operating hours of Melbourne Sexual Health Centre (MSHC) remained the same during the lockdown. We examined the number of consultations and STI at MSHC between January and June 2020 and stratified the data into pre-lockdown (3-February to 22-March), lockdown (23-March to 10-May) and post-lockdown (11-May to 28-June) with seven weeks in each period. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using Poisson regression models.
Results
The total number of consultations dropped from 7,818 in pre-lockdown to 4,652 during lockdown (IRR=0.60;95%CI:0.57-0.62) but increased to 5,347 in the post-lockdown period (IRR=1.15;95%CI:1.11-1.20). There was a 68% reduction in asymptomatic screening during lockdown (IRR=0.32; 95%CI:0.30-0.35) but it gradually increased in the post-lockdown period (IRR=1.59;95%CI:1.46-1.74). STI with milder symptoms showed a marked reduction, including non-gonococcal urethritis (IRR=0.60;95%CI:0.51-0.72), and candidiasis (IRR=0.61;95%CI:0.49-0.76) during lockdown compared with pre-lockdown. STI with more marked symptoms did not change significantly, including pelvic inflammatory disease (IRR=0.95;95%CI:0.61-1.47) and infectious syphilis (IRR=1.14;95%CI:0.73-1.77). There was no significant change in STI diagnoses in post-lockdown compared to lockdown.
Conclusions
The public appeared to be prioritising their attendance for sexual health services based on the urgency of their clinical conditions. This suggests that the effectiveness of clinical services in detecting, treating and preventing onward transmission of important symptomatic conditions is being mainly preserved despite large falls in absolute numbers of attendees.
ObjectivesTo examine with a parallel group study design the performance and physiological responses to a 14-day off-season ‘live high-train low in the heat’ training camp in elite football players.MethodsSeventeen professional Australian Rules Football players participated in outdoor football-specific skills (32±1°C, 11.5 h) and indoor strength (23±1°C, 9.3 h) sessions and slept (12 nights) and cycled indoors (4.3 h) in either normal air (NORM, n=8) or normobaric hypoxia (14±1 h/day, FiO2 15.2–14.3%, corresponding to a simulated altitude of 2500–3000 m, hypoxic (HYP), n=9). They completed the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery level 2 (Yo-YoIR2) in temperate conditions (23±1°C, normal air) precamp (Pre) and postcamp (Post). Plasma volume (PV) and haemoglobin mass (Hbmass) were measured at similar times and 4 weeks postcamp (4WPost). Sweat sodium concentration ((Na+)sweat) was measured Pre and Post during a heat-response test (44°C).ResultsBoth groups showed very large improvements in Yo-YoIR2 at Post (+44%; 90% CL 38, 50), with no between-group differences in the changes (−1%; −9, 9). Postcamp, large changes in PV (+5.6%; −1.8, 5.6) and (Na+)sweat (−29%; −37, −19) were observed in both groups, while Hbmass only moderately increased in HYP (+2.6%; 0.5, 4.5). At 4WPost, there was a likely slightly greater increase in Hbmass (+4.6%; 0.0, 9.3) and PV (+6%; −5, 18, unclear) in HYP than in NORM.ConclusionsThe combination of heat and hypoxic exposure during sleep/training might offer a promising ‘conditioning cocktail’ in team sports.
AbstractWe surveyed 204 MSM who were PrEP users. One in four daily PrEP users stopped taking PrEP during the COVID-19 pandemic and 5% switched to on-demand PrEP. Most men reduced PrEP use because they stopped having casual sex and reduced the number of casual partners during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Objective: To describe the proportion of 16-29-year-olds tested for chlamydia by Australian general practitioners in a 12-month period. Design and setting: Between October 2007 and September 2008, the national chlamydia testing rate in 16-29-year-olds was calculated by dividing the number of Medicare-reimbursed chlamydia tests by two denominators: (i) Medicare-reimbursed GP consultations; and (ii) estimated resident populations adjusted for the proportion who were sexually active. Main outcome measures: GP chlamydia testing rates in 16-29-year-olds per 100 patients attending a GP consultation and per 100 sexually active population, by patient age and sex, state/territory of residence, and remoteness area. Results: Among the estimated Australian population of 16-29-year-olds, 85.6% of females and 64.4% of males had at least one GP consultation in the 12-month period. The national GP chlamydia testing rate per 100 patients was 8.9% (95% CI, 8.88%-8.94%). The national GP chlamydia testing rate per 100 sexually active population was 8.0% (95% CI, 7.92%-7.98%). The rate per 100 sexually active population was higher in females (12.5%) compared with males (3.7%) (P < 0.01); higher in 20-24-year-olds (9.0%) compared with 16-19-year-olds (8.7%) and 25-29-year-olds (6.6%) (P < 0.01); higher in those living in non-metropolitan areas (11.0%) compared with metropolitan areas (8.4%) (P < 0.01); and highest in those living in the Northern Territory (21.4%) compared with other jurisdictions (P < 0.01). Conclusions: Despite clinical guidelines recommending annual chlamydia testing for sexually active 15-29-year-olds, our analysis showed that a high proportion of young people aged 16-29 years attend a GP each year, but few of the sexually active population in this age group were tested for chlamydia in general practice. Strategies MJA 2011; 194: 249-252 are needed to support GPs to enhance chlamydia testing in young people.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.