47
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Extragenital Infections Caused by Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: A Review of the Literature

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references169

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prevalence of rectal, urethral, and pharyngeal chlamydia and gonorrhea detected in 2 clinical settings among men who have sex with men: San Francisco, California, 2003.

          The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed screening and diagnostic testing guidelines for chlamydia and gonorrhea at urethral, rectal, and pharyngeal sites for men who have sex with men (MSM). However, in most clinical settings, rectal chlamydial testing is not performed for MSM, and primarily sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics alone perform routine rectal and pharyngeal gonorrhea screening for asymptomatic men. We evaluated the prevalence of rectal, urethral, and pharyngeal chlamydial and gonococcal infections among MSM seen at the municipal STD clinic and the gay men's community health center. We also determined the proportion of asymptomatic rectal infections, described the patterns of single and multiple anatomic sites of infection, and evaluated the proportion of chlamydial infections that would be missed and not treated if MSM were not routinely tested for chlamydia. We tested specimens using previously validated nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). The prevalence of infection varied by anatomic site (chlamydia: rectal, 7.9%; urethral, 5.2%; and pharyngeal, 1.4%; for gonorrhea, rectal, 6.9%; urethral, 6.0%; and pharyngeal, 9.2%). Approximately 85% of rectal infections were asymptomatic supporting the need for routine screening. Because 53% of chlamydial infections and 64% of gonococcal infections were at nonurethral sites, these infections would be missed and not treated if only urethral screening was performed. In addition, >70% of chlamydial infections would be missed and not treated if MSM were tested only for gonorrhea. Because these infections enhance both HIV transmission and susceptibility, clinical settings serving MSM should evaluate the prevalence of chlamydial and gonococcal infections by anatomic site using validated NAATs.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical Framework and Medical Countermeasure Use During an Anthrax Mass-Casualty Incident.

            In 2014, CDC published updated guidelines for the prevention and treatment of anthrax (Hendricks KA, Wright ME, Shadomy SV, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel meetings on prevention and treatment of anthrax in adults. Emerg Infect Dis 2014;20[2]. Available at http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/2/13-0687_article.htm). These guidelines provided recommended best practices for the diagnosis and treatment of persons with naturally occurring or bioterrorism-related anthrax in conventional medical settings. An aerosolized release of Bacillus anthracis spores over densely populated areas could become a mass-casualty incident. To prepare for this possibility, the U.S. government has stockpiled equipment and therapeutics (known as medical countermeasures [MCMs]) for anthrax prevention and treatment. However, previously developed, publicly available clinical recommendations have not addressed the use of MCMs or clinical management during an anthrax mass-casualty incident, when the number of patients is likely to exceed the ability of the health care infrastructure to provide conventional standards of care and supplies of MCMs might be inadequate to meet the demand required. To address this gap, in 2013, CDC conducted a series of systematic reviews of the scientific literature on anthrax to identify evidence that could help clinicians and public health authorities set guidelines for intravenous antimicrobial and antitoxin use, diagnosis of anthrax meningitis, and management of common anthrax-specific complications in the setting of a mass-casualty incident. Evidence from these reviews was presented to professionals with expertise in anthrax, critical care, and disaster medicine during a series of workgroup meetings that were held from August 2013 through March 2014. In March 2014, a meeting was held at which 102 subject matter experts discussed the evidence and adapted the existing best practices guidance to a clinical use framework for the judicious, efficient, and rational use of stockpiled MCMs for the treatment of anthrax during a mass-casualty incident, which is described in this report. This report addresses elements of hospital-based acute care, specifically antitoxins and intravenous antimicrobial use, and the diagnosis and management of common anthrax-specific complications during a mass-casualty incident. The recommendations in this report should be implemented only after predefined triggers have been met for shifting from conventional to contingency or crisis standards of care, such as when the magnitude of cases might lead to impending shortages of intravenous antimicrobials, antitoxins, critical care resources (e.g., chest tubes and chest drainage systems), or diagnostic capability. This guidance does not address primary triage decisions, anthrax postexposure prophylaxis, hospital bed or workforce surge capacity, or the logistics of dispensing MCMs. Clinicians, hospital administrators, state and local health officials, and planners can use these recommendations to assist in the development of crisis protocols that will ensure national preparedness for an anthrax mass-casualty incident.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Genomic epidemiology of Neisseria gonorrhoeae with reduced susceptibility to cefixime in the USA: a retrospective observational study

              Summary Background The emergence of Neisseria gonorrhoeae with decreased susceptibility to extended spectrum cephalosporins raises the prospect of untreatable gonorrhoea. In the absence of new treatments, efforts to slow the increasing incidence of resistant gonococcus require insight into the factors that contribute to its emergence and spread. We assessed the relatedness between isolates in the USA and reconstructed likely spread of lineages through different sexual networks. Methods We sequenced the genomes of 236 isolates of N gonorrhoeae collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP) from sentinel public sexually transmitted disease clinics in the USA, including 118 (97%) of the isolates from 2009–10 in GISP with reduced susceptibility to cefixime (cefRS) and 118 cefixime-susceptible isolates from GISP matched as closely as possible by location, collection date, and sexual orientation. We assessed the association between antimicrobial resistance genotype and phenotype and correlated phylogenetic clustering with location and sexual orientation. Findings Mosaic penA XXXIV had a high positive predictive value for cefRS. We found that two of the 118 cefRS isolates lacked a mosaic penA allele, and rechecking showed that these two were susceptible to cefixime. Of the 116 remaining cefRS isolates, 114 (98%) fell into two distinct lineages that have independently acquired mosaic penA allele XXXIV. A major lineage of cefRS strains spread eastward, predominantly through a sexual network of men who have sex with men. Eight of nine inferred transitions between sexual networks were introductions from men who have sex with men into the heterosexual population. Interpretation Genomic methods might aid efforts to slow the spread of antibiotic-resistant N gonorrhoeae through augmentation of gonococcal outbreak surveillance and identification of populations that could benefit from increased screening for aymptomatic infections. Funding American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association, Wellcome Trust, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol
                Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol
                IDOG
                Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                1064-7449
                1098-0997
                2016
                5 June 2016
                : 2016
                : 5758387
                Affiliations
                1Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI 02903, USA
                2Department of Pathology, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI 02903, USA
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Per Anders Mardh

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7146-1731
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5633-071X
                Article
                10.1155/2016/5758387
                4913006
                27366021
                a0c1fe4a-59db-47ec-9faf-9ad17a1d2c7c
                Copyright © 2016 Philip A. Chan et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 31 December 2015
                : 12 April 2016
                : 20 April 2016
                Categories
                Review Article

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                Obstetrics & Gynecology

                Comments

                Comment on this article