In the United States, sexually transmitted diseases due to Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae continue to be a major public health burden. Screening of extragenital sites including the oropharynx and rectum is an emerging practice based on recent studies highlighting the prevalence of infection at these sites. We reviewed studies reporting the prevalence of extragenital infections in women, men who have sex with men (MSM), and men who have sex only with women (MSW), including distribution by anatomical site. Among women, prevalence was found to be 0.6–35.8% for rectal gonorrhea (median reported prevalence 1.9%), 0–29.6% for pharyngeal gonorrhea (median 2.1%), 2.0–77.3% for rectal chlamydia (median 8.7%), and 0.2–3.2% for pharyngeal chlamydia (median 1.7%). Among MSM, prevalence was found to be 0.2–24.0% for rectal gonorrhea (median 5.9%), 0.5–16.5% for pharyngeal gonorrhea (median 4.6%), 2.1–23.0% for rectal chlamydia (median 8.9%), and 0–3.6% for pharyngeal chlamydia (median 1.7%). Among MSW, the prevalence was found to be 0–5.7% for rectal gonorrhea (median 3.4%), 0.4–15.5% for pharyngeal gonorrhea (median 2.2%), 0–11.8% for rectal chlamydia (median 7.7%), and 0–22.0% for pharyngeal chlamydia (median 1.6%). Extragenital infections are often asymptomatic and found in the absence of reported risk behaviors, such as receptive anal and oral intercourse. We discuss current clinical recommendations and future directions for research.

IntroductionDespite the efficacy of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in preventing HIV transmission, few studies have evaluated PrEP use and retention in care outcomes in real-world settings outside of clinical trials.MethodsData were collected from PrEP clinical care programmes in three mid-size US cities: Providence, Rhode Island (RI); Jackson, Mississippi (MS); and St. Louis, Missouri (MO). We assessed the demographic and social characteristics of patients prescribed PrEP and documented their insurance and copayment experiences. We assessed retention in PrEP care at three and six months. Multivariate analyses were used to predict retention in care among men who have sex with men (MSM). HIV acquisition among the cohort was also assessed.ResultsA total of 267 (RI: 117; MS: 88; MO: 62) patients were prescribed PrEP; 81% filled prescriptions (RI: 73%; MS: 82%; MO: 94%; p<0.001). Patients in MS and MO were more commonly African American than in RI (72% and 26% vs. 7%, respectively), but less frequently Latino (2% and 3% vs. 24%, respectively). More patients reported living below the federal poverty line in MS (52%) compared to MO (23%) and RI (26%). Most patients were MSM (RI: 92%; MS: 88%; MO: 84%). The majority of MSM reported recent condomless anal sex (RI: 70%; MS: 65%; MO: 75%). Among 171 patients prescribed PrEP at least six months beforehand, 72% were retained in care at three months (RI: 68%; MS: 70%; MO: 87%; p=0.12) and 57% were retained in PrEP care at six months (RI: 53%: MS: 61%; MO: 63%; p=0.51). Insurance status and medication costs were not found to be significant barriers for obtaining PrEP. Three patients became infected with HIV during the six-month period after being prescribed PrEP (1.1%; 3/267), including one in RI (suspected acute HIV infection), one in MO (confirmed poor adherence) and one in MS (seroconverted just prior to initiation).ConclusionsPrEP initiation and retention in care differed across these distinct settings. In contrast, retention in PrEP care was consistently suboptimal across sites. Further research is needed to identify the individual, social and structural factors that may impede or enhance retention in PrEP care

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective HIV prevention strategy. There is little scientific consensus about how to measure PrEP program implementation progress. We draw on several years of experience in implementing PrEP programs and propose a PrEP continuum of care that includes: (1) identifying individuals at highest risk for contracting HIV, (2) increasing HIV risk awareness among those individuals, (3) enhancing PrEP awareness, (4) facilitating PrEP access, (5) linking to PrEP care, (6) prescribing PrEP, (7) initiating PrEP, (8) adhering to PrEP, and (9) retaining individuals in PrEP care. We also propose four distinct categories of PrEP retention in care that include being: (1) indicated for PrEP and retained in PrEP care, (2) indicated for PrEP and not retained in PrEP care, (3) no longer indicated for PrEP, and (4) lost to follow-up for PrEP care. This continuum of PrEP care creates a framework that researchers and practitioners can use to measure PrEP awareness, uptake, adherence, and retention. Understanding each point along the proposed continuum of PrEP care is critical for developing effective PrEP interventions and for measuring public health progress in PrEP program implementation.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a biomedical intervention that can reduce rates of HIV transmission when taken once daily by HIV-negative individuals. Little is understood about PrEP uptake and retention in care among the populations most heavily impacted by the HIV epidemic, particularly among young men who have sex with men (YMSM) in the Deep South. Therefore, this study explored the structural, social, behavioral, and clinical factors that affect PrEP use and retention in care among YMSM in Jackson, Mississippi. Thirty MSM who were prescribed PrEP at an outpatient primary care clinic were interviewed and included 23 men who had been retained in PrEP care and seven who had not been retained. The mean age of participants was 26.6 years. Most (23) participants were African American. Major factors affecting PrEP use and retention in PrEP care included 1) structural factors such as cost and access to financial assistance for medications and clinical services; 2) social factors such as stigma and relationship status; 3) behavioral factors including sexual risk behaviors; and 4) clinical factors such as perceived and actual side effects. Many participants also discussed the positive spillover effects of PrEP use and reported that PrEP had a positive impact on their health. Four of the seven individuals who had not been retained re-enrolled in PrEP care after completing their interviews, suggesting that case management and ongoing outreach can enhance retention in PrEP care. Interventions to enhance retention in PrEP care among MSM in the Deep South will be most effective if they address the complex structural, social, clinical, and behavioral factors that influence PrEP uptake and retention in PrEP care.

Background The monitoring of patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection who are treated with antiretroviral medications in resource-limited settings is typically performed by use of clinical and immunological criteria. The early identification of first-line antiretroviral treatment failure is critical to prevent morbidity, mortality, and drug resistance. Misclassification of failure may result in premature switching to second-line therapy. Methods Adult patients in western Kenya had their viral loads (VLs) determined if they had adhered to first-line therapy for >6 months and were suspected of experiencing immunological failure (ie, their CD4 cell count decreased by ⩾25% in 6 months). Misclassification of treatment failure was defined as a ⩾25% decrease in CD4 cell count with a VL of <400 copies/mL. Logistic and tree regressions examined relationships between VL and 4 variables: CD4 T cell count (hereafter CD4 cell count), percentage of T cells expressing CD4 (hereafter CD4 cell percentage), percentage decrease in the CD4 T cell count (hereafter CD4 cell count percent decrease), and percentage decrease in the percentage of T cells expressing CD4 (hereafter CD4% percent decrease). Results There were 149 patients who were treated for 23 months; they were identified as having a ⩾25% decrease in CD4 cell count (from 375 to 216 cells/μL) and a CD4% percent decrease (from 19% to 15%); of these 149 patients, 86 (58%) were misclassified as having experienced treatment failure. Of 42 patients who had a ⩾50% decrease in CD4 cell count, 18 (43%) were misclassified. In multivariate logistic regression, misclassification odds were associated with a higher CD4 cell count, a shorter duration of therapy, and a smaller CD4% percent decrease. By combining these variables, we may be able to improve our ability to predict treatment failure. Conclusions Immunological monitoring as a sole indicator of virological failure would lead to a premature switch to valuable second-line regimens for 58% of patients who experience a ⩾25% decrease in CD4 cell count and for 43% patients who experience a ⩾50% decrease in CD4 cell count, and therefore this type of monitoring should be reevaluated. Selective virological monitoring and the addition of indicators like trends CD4% percent decrease and duration of therapy may systematically improve the identification of treatment failure. VL testing is now mandatory for patients suspected of experiencing first-line treatment failure within the Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare (AMPATH) in western Kenya, and should be considered in all resource-limited settings.

BACKGROUND: Many of the five million Americans chronically infected with hepatitis C (HCV) are unaware of their infection and are not in care. OBJECTIVE: We implemented and evaluated HCV screening and linkage-to-care interventions in a community setting. DESIGN: We developed a comprehensive, communitybased HCV screening and linkage-to-care program in a medically underserved neighborhood with high rates of HCV infection in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We provided patient navigation services to enroll uninsured patients in insurance programs, facilitate referrals from primary care physicians and link patients to an HCV infectious disease specialist with intention to treat and cure. PATIENTS: Philadelphia residents were recruited through street outreach. MAIN MEASURES: We measured anti-HCV seroprevalence and diagnosis, linkage and retention in care outcomes for chronically infected patients. KEY RESULTS: We screened 1,301 participants for HCV; anti-HCV seroprevalence was 3.9 % and 2.8 % of all patients were chronically infected. Half of chronically infected patients were newly diagnosed; the remaining patients were aware of infection but not in care. We provided confirmatory RNA testing and results, assisted patients with attaining insurance and linked most chronically infected patients to a primary care provider. The biggest barrier to retaining patients in care was obtaining referrals for subspecialty providers; however, we obtained referrals for 64 % of chronically infected participants and have retained most in subspecialty HCV care. Several have commenced treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Non-clinical screening programs with patient navigator services are an effective means to diagnose, link, retain and re-engage patients in HCV care. Eliminating referral requirements for subspecialty care might further enhance retention in care for patients chronically infected with HCV.KEY WORDS: hepatitis C; HCV screening; community-based screening; patient navigation; continuum of care. J Gen Intern Med 30(7):950-7

BackgroundThe HIV epidemic in the United States (US) disproportionately affects gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM). Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) using co-formulated tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and emtricitabine (FTC) has demonstrated high efficacy in reducing HIV incidence among MSM. However, low adherence was reported in major efficacy trials and may present a substantial barrier to successful PrEP implementation. Rates of adherence to PrEP in “real-world” clinical settings in the US remain largely unknown.MethodsWe reviewed demographic and clinical data for the first 50 patients to enroll in a clinical PrEP program in Providence, Rhode Island. We analyzed self-reported drug adherence as well as drug concentrations in dried blood spots (DBS) from patients who attended either a three- or six-month follow-up appointment. We further assessed drug concentrations and the resistance profile of a single patient who seroconverted while taking PrEP.ResultsOf the first 50 patients to be prescribed PrEP, 62% attended a follow-up appointment at three months and 38% at six months. Of those who attended an appointment at either time point (70%, n = 35), 92% and 95% reported taking ±4 doses/week at three and six months, respectively. Drug concentrations were performed on a random sample of 20 of the 35 patients who attended a follow-up appointment. TDF levels consistent with ±4 doses/week were found in 90% of these patients. There was a significant correlation between self-reported adherence and drug concentrations (r = 0.49, p = 0.02). One patient who had been prescribed PrEP seroconverted at his three-month follow-up visit. The patient’s drug concentrations were consistent with daily dosing. Population sequencing and ultrasensitive allele-specific PCR detected the M184V mutation, but no other TDF- or FTC-associated mutations, including those present as minor variants.ConclusionIn this clinical PrEP program, adherence was high, and self-reported drug adherence accurately reflected drug concentrations as measured by DBS.

BackgroundThe clinical consequences of co-infection with two or more respiratory viruses are poorly understood. We sought to determine if co-infection with pandemic 2009–2010 influenza A H1N1 (pH1N1) and another respiratory virus was associated with worse clinical outcomes.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed of all hospitalized patients with a positive respiratory viral panel (RVP) for two or more viruses within 72 hours of admission at our institution from October 2009 to December 2009. We compared patients infected with one respiratory virus to those with respiratory viral co-infection.ResultsWe identified 617 inpatients with a positive RVP sample with a single virus and 49 inpatients with a positive RVP sample for two viruses (i.e. co-infection). Co-infected patients were significantly younger, more often had fever/chills, tachypnea, and they more often demonstrated interstitial opacities suggestive of viral pneumonia on the presenting chest radiograph (OR 7.5, 95% CI 3.4–16.5). The likelihood of death, length of stay, and requirement for intensive care unit level of care were similar in both groups, but patients with any respiratory virus co-infection were more likely to experience complications, particularly treatment for a secondary bacterial pneumonia (OR 6.8, 95% CI 3.3–14.2). Patients co-infected with pH1N1 and another respiratory virus were more likely to present with chest radiograph changes suggestive of a viral pneumonia, compared to mono-infection with pH1N1 (OR 16.9, 95% CI 4.5–62.7). By logistic regression using mono-infection with non-PH1N1 viruses as the reference group, co-infection with pH1N1 was the strongest independent predictor of treatment for a secondary bacterial pneumonia (OR 17.8, 95% CI 6.7–47.1).ConclusionPatients with viral co-infection, particularly with pH1N1, were more likely to have chest radiograph features compatible with a viral pneumonia and complications during their hospital course, particularly treatment for secondary bacterial pneumonia. Despite this, co-infection was not associated with ICU admission.