Pilot implementation of a home-care programme with chlamydia, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B, and syphilis self-sampling in HIV-positive men who have sex with men.

BACKGROUND: Not all men who have sex with men (MSM) at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection currently receive sexual healthcare. To increase the coverage of high-quality HIV/STI care for MSM, we developed a home-care programme, as extended STI clinic care. This programme included home sampling for testing, combined with treatment and sexual health counselling. Here, we pilot implemented the programme in a hospital setting (HIV-positive MSM) to determine the factors for the successful implementation of STI home sampling strategies. METHODS: Healthcare providers from the HIV hospital treatment centre (Maastricht) were invited to offer free STI sampling kits (syphilis, hepatitis B, [extra]genital chlamydia and gonorrhoea laboratory testing) to their HIV-positive MSM patients (March to May 2018). To evaluate implementation of the program, quantitative and qualitative data were collected to assess adoption (HIV care providers offered sampling kits to MSM), participation (MSM accepted the sampling kits) and sampling-kit return, STI diagnoses, and implementation experiences. RESULTS: Adoption was 85.3% (110/129), participation was 58.2% (64/110), and sampling-kit return was 43.8% (28/64). Of the tested MSM, 64.3% (18/28) did not recently (< 3 months) undergo a STI test; during the programme, 17.9% (5/28) were diagnosed with an STI. Of tested MSM, 64.3% (18/28) was vaccinated against hepatitis B. MSM reported that the sampling kits were easily and conveniently used. Care providers (hospital and STI clinic) considered the programme acceptable and feasible, with some logistical challenges. All (100%) self-taken chlamydia and gonorrhoea samples were adequate for testing, and 82.1% (23/28) of MSM provided sufficient self-taken blood samples for syphilis screening. However, full syphilis diagnostic work-up required for MSM with a history of syphilis (18/28) was not possible in 44.4% (8/18) of MSM because of insufficient blood sampled. CONCLUSION: The home sampling programme increased STI test uptake and was acceptable and feasible for MSM and their care providers. Return of sampling kits should be further improved. The home-care programme is a promising extension of regular STI care to deliver comprehensive STI care to the home setting for MSM. Yet, in an HIV-positive population, syphilis diagnosis may be challenging when using self-taken blood samples.

Complex narratives of health, stigma and control: Antimicrobial resistance screening among non-hospitalized refugees.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is often presented as a major public health problem globally. Screening for AMR usually takes place in clinical settings. Recent developments in microbiology stimulated a series of studies focusing on AMR in communities, and particularly in travelers (any mobile individual), which was argued to be important for identifying potential public health risks. Against this background, microbiologists have become interested in non-hospitalized refugees as one of the traveler groups. However, this attention to refugees has provoked some professional debates on potential stigmatization of refugees as dangerous "others". To contribute to these debates, and to explore the idea of AMR screening of non-hospitalized refugees from different perspectives, we conducted a qualitative study among four groups of stakeholders who were chosen because of their associations with potential microbiological screening: microbiologists, public health physicians, public health nurses, and refugees. The study took place in a Dutch city from June to August 2016 and had 17 participants: five microbiologists, two public health nurses, four public health physicians, and six refugees. While microbiologists and public health physicians demonstrated a de-contextualized biomedical narrative in arguing that AMR screening among non-hospitalized refugees could be important for scientific research as well as for AMR prevention in communities, public health nurses displayed a more contextualized narrative bringing the benefits for individuals at the center and indicating that screening exclusively among refugees may provoke fear and stigmatization. Refugees were rather positive about AMR screening but stressed that it should particularly contribute to their individual health. We conclude that to design AMR prevention strategies, it is important to consider the complex meanings of AMR screening, and to design these strategies as a process of co-production by diverse stakeholders, including the target populations.

Rapid diagnostic testing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage at different anatomical sites: costs and benefits of less extensive screening regimens.

Multiple body site screening and pre-emptive isolation of patients at risk for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriage are considered essential for control of nosocomial spread. The relative importance of extranasal screening when using rapid diagnostic testing (RDT) is unknown. Using data from a multicentre study evaluating BD GeneOhm™ MRSA PCR (IDI), Xpert MRSA (GeneXpert) and chromogenic agar, added to conventional cultures, we determined cost-effectiveness assuming isolation measures would have been based on RDT results of different hypothetical screening regimes. Costs per isolation day avoided were calculated for regimes with single or less extensive multiple site RDT, regimes without conventional back-up cultures and when PCR would have been performed with pooling of swabs. Among 1764 patients at risk, MRSA prevalence was 3.3% (n = 59). In all scenarios the negative predictive value is above 98.4%. With back-up cultures of all sites as a reference, the costs per isolation day avoided were €15.19, €30.83 and €45.37 with 'nares only' screening using chromogenic agar, IDI and GeneXpert, respectively, as compared with €19.95, €95.77 and €125.43 per isolation day avoided when all body sites had been screened. Without back-up cultures costs per isolation day avoided using chromogenic agar would range from €9.24 to €76.18 when costs per false-negative RDT range from €5000 up to €50 000; costs for molecular screening methods would be higher in all scenarios evaluated. In conclusion, in a low endemic setting chromogenic agar screening added to multiple site conventional cultures is the most cost-effective MRSA screening strategy.