Evaluation of gonorrhea test of cure at 1 week in a Los Angeles community-based clinic serving men who have sex with men.

BACKGROUND: Because of the decreasing susceptibility of Neisseria gonorrhoeae to cephalosporin therapy, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends test of cure (TOC) 1 week after gonorrhea (GC) treatment if therapies other than ceftriaxone are used. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asks clinicians, particularly those caring for men who have sex with men (MSM) on the west coast, to consider retesting all MSM at 1 week. However, it is unclear if this is acceptable to providers and patients or if nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are useful for TOC at 7 days. METHODS: Between January and July 2012, MSM with GC were advised to return 1 week after treatment for TOC using NAAT. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine demographic and behavioral differences between MSM who returned for follow-up and MSM who did not. RESULTS: Of 737 men with GC, 194 (26.3%) returned between 3 and 21 days of treatment. Individuals who returned were more likely to have no GC history (P = 0.0001) and to report no initial symptoms (P = 0.02) when compared with individuals who did not return for TOC. Of those who returned, 0% of urethral samples, 7.4% of rectal samples, and 5.3% of pharyngeal samples were NAAT positive at TOC. CONCLUSIONS: Although TOC may be an important strategy in reducing complications and the spread of GC, low return rates may make implementation challenging. If implemented, extra efforts should be considered to enhance return rates among individuals with a history of GC. If TOCs are recommended at 1 week and NAATs are used, the interpretation of positive results, particularly those from extragenital sites, may be difficult.

Uptake and repeat use of postexposure prophylaxis in a community-based clinic in Los Angeles, California.

Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) has become an important tool for HIV prevention in the men who have sex with men (MSM) communities within Los Angeles County. However, it is unclear as to whether the most sexually at-risk MSM populations are accessing PEP services. Furthermore, it is unclear what behavioral risk factors differentiate individuals who utilize PEP once (single PEP) versus those who utilize it multiple times (re-PEP). Data were collected between May 2011 and December 2012 on all clients enrolled in the Los Angeles LGBT Center's (the Center) PEP-LA program as well as on all sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening clients visiting the Center. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to analyze results. PEP clients had greater odds of having a history of gonorrhea in the past year when compared to high-risk, non-PEP clients (OR: 1.71; CI: 1.25-2.35). Furthermore, they had greater odds of using methamphetamines (OR: 1.71; CI: 1.30-2.24) and inhaled nitrates (OR: 1.62; CI: 1.30-2.01) in the past 12 months when compared to high-risk, non-PEP clients. Re-PEP clients had greater odds of methamphetamine use than single PEP clients (OR: 2.80; CI: 1.65-4.75). There were no significant differences by race/ethnicity between high-risk, non-PEP clients and PEP clients in either the entire cohort or MSM only sample. However, African Americans made up 8.5% of persons accessing PEP services but 16.7% of persons who tested HIV positive. Similar proportions of PEP use by race/ethnicity are problematic considering the disproportionate burden of HIV infections in the African American community. Although uptake among the highest risk populations has been brisk (n=649), inequities based upon race/ethnicity suggest the need for increased outreach.