These guidelines for the treatment of persons who have or are at risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) were updated by CDC after consultation with a group of professionals knowledgeable in the field of STDs who met in Atlanta on April 30-May 2, 2013. The information in this report updates the Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2010 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59 [No. RR-12]). These updated guidelines discuss 1) alternative treatment regimens for Neisseria gonorrhoeae; 2) the use of nucleic acid amplification tests for the diagnosis of trichomoniasis; 3) alternative treatment options for genital warts; 4) the role of Mycoplasma genitalium in urethritis/cervicitis and treatment-related implications; 5) updated HPV vaccine recommendations and counseling messages; 6) the management of persons who are transgender; 7) annual testing for hepatitis C in persons with HIV infection; 8) updated recommendations for diagnostic evaluation of urethritis; and 9) retesting to detect repeat infection. Physicians and other health-care providers can use these guidelines to assist in the prevention and treatment of STDs.

Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015.

Context Incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the United States has not been directly measured. New assays that differentiate recent vs long-standing HIV infections allow improved estimation of HIV incidence. Objective To estimate HIV incidence in the United States. Design, Setting, and Patients Remnant diagnostic serum specimens from patients 13 years or older and newly diagnosed with HIV during 2006 in 22 states were tested with the BED HIV-1 capture enzyme immunoassay to classify infections as recent or long-standing. Information on HIV cases was reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through June 2007. Incidence of HIV in the 22 states during 2006 was estimated using a statistical approach with adjustment for testing frequency and extrapolated to the United States. Results were corroborated with back-calculation of HIV incidence for 1977-2006 based on HIV diagnoses from 40 states and AIDS incidence from 50 states and the District of Columbia. Main Outcome Measure Estimated HIV incidence. Results An estimated 39 400 persons were diagnosed with HIV in 2006 in the 22 states. Of 6864 diagnostic specimens tested using the BED assay, 2133 (31%) were classified as recent infections. Based on extrapolations from these data, the estimated number of new infections for the United States in 2006 was 56 300 (95% confidence interval [CI], 48 200-64 500); the estimated incidence rate was 22.8 per 100 000 population (95% CI, 19.5-26.1). Forty-five percent of infections were among black individuals and 53% among men who have sex with men. The back-calculation (n = 1.230 million HIV/AIDS cases reported by the end of 2006) yielded an estimate of 55 400 (95% CI, 50 000-60 800) new infections per year for 2003-2006 and indicated that HIV incidence increased in the mid-1990s, then slightly declined after 1999 and has been stable thereafter. Conclusions This study provides the first direct estimates of HIV incidence in the United States using laboratory technologies previously implemented only in clinic-based settings. New HIV infections in the United States remain concentrated among men who have sex with men and among black individuals.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/182334/joc80059_520_529.pdf

Estimation of HIV Incidence in the United States

Objectives To identify and appraise empirical studies on publication and related biases published since 1998; to assess methods to deal with publication and related biases; and to examine, in a random sample of published systematic reviews, measures taken to prevent, reduce and detect dissemination bias. Data sources The main literature search, in August 2008, covered the Cochrane Methodology Register Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and CINAHL. In May 2009, PubMed, PsycINFO and OpenSIGLE were also searched. Reference lists of retrieved studies were also examined. Review methods In Part I, studies were classified as evidence or method studies and data were extracted according to types of dissemination bias or methods for dealing with it. Evidence from empirical studies was summarised narratively. In Part II, 300 systematic reviews were randomly selected from MEDLINE and the methods used to deal with publication and related biases were assessed. Results Studies with significant or positive results were more likely to be published than those with non-significant or negative results, thereby confirming findings from a previous HTA report. There was convincing evidence that outcome reporting bias exists and has an impact on the pooled summary in systematic reviews. Studies with significant results tended to be published earlier than studies with non-significant results, and empirical evidence suggests that published studies tended to report a greater treatment effect than those from the grey literature. Exclusion of non-English-language studies appeared to result in a high risk of bias in some areas of research such as complementary and alternative medicine. In a few cases, publication and related biases had a potentially detrimental impact on patients or resource use. Publication bias can be prevented before a literature review (e.g. by prospective registration of trials), or detected during a literature review (e.g. by locating unpublished studies, funnel plot and related tests, sensitivity analysis modelling), or its impact can be minimised after a literature review (e.g. by confirmatory large-scale trials, updating the systematic review). The interpretation of funnel plot and related statistical tests, often used to assess publication bias, was often too simplistic and likely misleading. More sophisticated modelling methods have not been widely used. Compared with systematic reviews published in 1996, recent reviews of health-care interventions were more likely to locate and include non-English-language studies and grey literature or unpublished studies, and to test for publication bias. Conclusions Dissemination of research findings is likely to be a biased process, although the actual impact of such bias depends on specific circumstances. The prospective registration of clinical trials and the endorsement of reporting guidelines may reduce research dissemination bias in clinical research. In systematic reviews, measures can be taken to minimise the impact of dissemination bias by systematically searching for and including relevant studies that are difficult to access. Statistical methods can be useful for sensitivity analyses. Further research is needed to develop methods for qualitatively assessing the risk of publication bias in systematic reviews, and to evaluate the effect of prospective registration of studies, open access policy and improved publication guidelines.

Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases.

These guidelines for the treatment of persons who have or are at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were updated by CDC after consultation with professionals knowledgeable in the field of STIs who met in Atlanta, Georgia, June 11-14, 2019. The information in this report updates the 2015 guidelines. These guidelines discuss 1) updated recommendations for treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Trichomonas vaginalis; 2) addition of metronidazole to the recommended treatment regimen for pelvic inflammatory disease; 3) alternative treatment options for bacterial vaginosis; 4) management of Mycoplasma genitalium; 5) human papillomavirus vaccine recommendations and counseling messages; 6) expanded risk factors for syphilis testing among pregnant women; 7) one-time testing for hepatitis C infection; 8) evaluation of men who have sex with men after sexual assault; and 9) two-step testing for serologic diagnosis of genital herpes simplex virus. Physicians and other health care providers can use these guidelines to assist in prevention and treatment of STIs.

/pdf/sexually-transmitted-infections-treatment-guidelines-2021-1pw20epe0h.pdf

Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines,2021

Objective We derived an estimate of male condom effectiveness during anal sex among men who have sex with men (MSM) because the most widely used estimate of condom effectiveness (80%) was based on studies of persons during heterosexual sex with an HIV-positive partner. Design Assessed male condom effectiveness during anal sex between MSM in 2 prospective cohort studies of HIV incidence by self-reported consistency of use. Methods Analyzed data combined from US participants in the EXPLORE trial (1999-2001) public use data set and in the VAX 004 trial (1998-1999) data set. Initially, HIV-uninfected MSM enrolled in these trials completed baseline and semiannual interviews about their sexual behaviors with male partners and underwent HIV testing. Using a time-to-event model, effectiveness of consistent condom use in preventing HIV infection was estimated among men reporting receptive and/or insertive anal sex with an HIV-positive partner and consistency of condom use. Results Among MSM reporting any anal sex with an HIV-positive male partner, we found 70% effectiveness with reported consistent condom use (compared with never use) and no significant protection when comparing sometimes use to never use. This point estimate for MSM was less than the 80% effectiveness estimate reported for heterosexuals in HIV-discordant couples reporting consistent condom use. However, the point estimates in the 2 populations are not statistically different. Only 16% of MSM reported consistent condom use during anal sex with male partners of any HIV status over the entire observation period. Conclusions These estimates are useful for counseling efforts and for modeling the impact and comparative effectiveness of condoms and other prevention methods used by MSM.

Condom effectiveness for HIV prevention by consistency of use among men who have sex with men in the United States.

Background: Studies of condom use to reduce risk of most sexually transmitted infection provide inconsistent results. This inconsistency is often attributed to methodologic limitations yet has not been assessed systematically. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to review studies of condom use and risk of gonorrhea and chlamydia, and to evaluate the importance of 4 key design and measurement factors on condom effectiveness estimates. Design: We reviewed studies published 1966 –2004 to assess risk reduction for gonorrhea and/or chlamydia associated with male condom use. Results: Of 45 studies identified, most found reduced risk of infection associated with condom use. All studies reviewed had methodologic limitations: only 28 (62%) distinguished consistent from inconsistent use; 2 (4%) reported on correct use or use problems; 13 (29%) distinguished incident from prevalent infection; and one (2%) included a population with documented exposure to infection. Eight of 10 studies with 2 or more of these attributes reported statistically significant protective effects for condom use versus 15 of 35 studies with zero or one attribute (80% vs. 43%, P 0.04). Conclusions: Condom use was associated with reduced risk of gonorrhea and chlamydia in men and women in most studies, despite methodologic limitations that likely underestimate condom effectiveness. Epidemiologic studies that better address these factors are needed to provide more accurate assessment of condom effectiveness. APPROXIMATELY 19 MILLION CASES of sexually transmitted infection (STI) occur in the United States each year. 1 For sexually active persons, male latex condoms are the most commonly used contraceptive method to prevent STIs. 2 When properly

James W Buehler

Papers

Condom use and risk of gonorrhea and Chlamydia: a systematic review of design and measurement factors assessed in epidemiologic studies.