Cross-sectional survey of sexual health professionals' experiences and perceptions of the 2022 mpox outbreak in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the experiences and perceptions of sexual health professionals responding to the May 2022 mpox outbreak in the UK. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, anonymous, online survey collecting quantitative and qualitative data. Convenience sample recruited via an international network of sexual health and HIV clinicians responding to mpox and promoted through clinical associations and social media. Survey domains included: clinical workload; preparedness, support, and training; safety at work; vaccination; and well-being. Qualitative descriptive analysis of open-text responses was conducted to support interpretation of the quantitative data. PARTICIPANTS: Participants who were employed as sexual health professionals in the UK and had direct clinical experience of mpox were included in the analysis. The survey was completed between 11 August and 31 October 2022 by 139 respondents, the majority of whom were doctors (72.7%), cis-female (70.5%) and White (78.4%). RESULTS: 70.3% reported that they were required to respond to mpox in addition to their existing clinical responsibilities, with 46.8% working longer hours as a result. In the open-text data, respondents highlighted that workload pressures were exacerbated by a lack of additional funding for mpox, pre-existing pressures on sexual health services, and unrealistic expectations around capacity. 67.6% of respondents reported experiencing negative emotional impact due to their mpox work, with stress (59.0%), fatigue (43.2%) and anxiety (36.0%) being the most common symptoms. 35.8% stated that they were less likely to remain in their profession because of their experiences during the mpox outbreak. In the open-text data, these feelings were ascribed to post-COVID exhaustion, understaffing and frustration among some participants at the handling of the mpox response. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that sexual health services require increased funding and resources, along with evidence-based well-being interventions, to support sexual health professionals' outbreak preparedness and recovery.

Surveillance of Mpox Cases Attending Sexual Health Services in England (SOMASS): design, implementation and initial findings from the SOMASS data collection tool, 2022.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to design and implement a data collection tool to support the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreak, and to describe clinical and epidemiological data from individuals with mpox attending sexual health services (SHSs) in England. METHODS: The UK Health Security Agency and the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV established the Surveillance of Mpox Cases Attending Sexual Health Services in England (SOMASS) system.Descriptive data were collected via a secure web-based data collection tool, completed by SHS clinicians following consultation with individuals with suspected mpox. Data were collected on patient demographics, clinical presentation and severity, exposures and behavioural characteristics. RESULTS: As of 17 November 2022, 276 SOMASS responses were submitted from 31 SHSs in England.Where recorded, most (245 of 261; 94%) individuals identified as gay, bisexual or men who have sex with men (GBMSM), of whom two-thirds were HIV negative (170 of 257; 66%) and taking HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (87 of 140; 62%), with a median age of 37 years (IQR: 30-43). Where known, thirty-nine per cent (63 of 161) had a concurrent sexually transmitted infection (STI) at the time of their mpox diagnosis.For 46% of individuals (127 of 276), dermatological lesions were the initial symptom. Lesions were mostly asymmetrical and polymorphic, predominately affecting the genital area and perianal areas.Nine per cent (24 of 276) of individuals were hospitalised. We report an association between receptive anal intercourse among GBMSM and proctitis (27 of 115; 24% vs 7 of 130; 5%; p<0.0001), and the presence of perianal lesions as the primary lesion site (46 of 115; 40% vs 25 of 130; 19%; p=0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate multidisciplinary and responsive working to develop a robust data collection tool, which improved surveillance and strengthened the knowledge base. The SOMASS tool will allow data collection if mpox resurges in England. The model for developing the tool can be adapted to facilitate the preparedness and response to future STI outbreaks.

Community transmission of monkeypox in the United Kingdom, April to May 2022.

Between 7 and 25 May, 86 monkeypox cases were confirmed in the United Kingdom (UK). Only one case is known to have travelled to a monkeypox virus (MPXV) endemic country. Seventy-nine cases with information were male and 66 reported being gay, bisexual, or other men who have sex with men. This is the first reported sustained MPXV transmission in the UK, with human-to-human transmission through close contacts, including in sexual networks. Improving case ascertainment and onward-transmission preventive measures are ongoing.

Is mpox an STI? The societal aspects and healthcare implications of a key question.

This letter explores the societal aspects and healthcare implications that underlie thinking about mpox (formerly known was monkeypox), in the 2022 outbreak, as a sexually transmitted infection (STI). The authors examine what underlies this question, exploring what is an STI, what is sex, and what is the role of stigma in sexual health promotion. The authors argue that, in this specific outbreak, mpox is an STI among men who have sex with men (MSM). The authors highlight the need of critically thinking about how to communicate effectively, the role of homophobia and other inequalities, and the importance of the social sciences.

Gentamicin compared with ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea (G-ToG): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection for which ceftriaxone is the current first-line treatment, but antimicrobial resistance is emerging. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone (both combined with azithromycin) for treatment of gonorrhoea. METHODS: G-ToG was a multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing treatment with gentamicin to treatment with ceftriaxone for patients with gonorrhoea. The patients, treating physician, and assessing physician were masked to treatment but the treating nurse was not. The trial took place at 14 sexual health clinics in England. Adults aged 16-70 years were eligible for participation if they had a diagnosis of uncomplicated genital, pharyngeal, or rectal gonorrhoea. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single intramuscular dose of either gentamicin 240 mg (gentamicin group) or ceftriaxone 500 mg (ceftriaxone group). All participants also received a single 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by clinic and performed using a secure web-based system. The primary outcome was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all initially infected sites, defined as a negative nucleic acid amplification test 2 weeks post treatment. Primary outcome analyses included only participants who had follow-up data, irrespective of the baseline visit N gonorrhoeae test result. The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a lower confidence limit of 5% for the risk difference. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN51783227. FINDINGS: Of 1762 patients assessed, we enrolled 720 participants between Oct 7, 2014, and Nov 14, 2016, and randomly assigned 358 to gentamicin and 362 to ceftriaxone. Primary outcome data were available for 306 (85%) of 362 participants allocated to ceftriaxone and 292 (82%) of 358 participants allocated to gentamicin. At 2 weeks after treatment, infection had cleared for 299 (98%) of 306 participants in the ceftriaxone group compared with 267 (91%) of 292 participants in the gentamicin group (adjusted risk difference -6·4%, 95% CI -10·4% to -2·4%). Of the 328 participants who had a genital infection, 151 (98%) of 154 in the ceftriaxone group and 163 (94%) of 174 in the gentamicin group had clearance at follow-up (adjusted risk difference -4·4%, -8·7 to 0). For participants with a pharyngeal infection, a greater proportion receiving ceftriaxone had clearance at follow-up (108 [96%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 82 [80%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -15·3%, -24·0 to -6·5). Similarly, a greater proportion of participants with rectal infection in the ceftriaxone group had clearance (134 [98%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 107 [90%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -7·8%, -13·6 to -2·0). Thus, we did not find that a single dose of gentamicin 240 mg was non-inferior to a single dose of ceftriaxone 500 mg for the treatment of gonorrhoea, when both drugs were combined with a 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. The side-effect profiles were similar between groups, although severity of pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin (mean visual analogue pain score 36 of 100 in the gentamicin group vs 21 of 100 in the ceftriaxone group). INTERPRETATION: Gentamicin is not appropriate as first-line treatment for gonorrhoea but remains potentially useful for patients with isolated genital infection, or for patients who are allergic or intolerant to ceftriaxone, or harbour a ceftriaxone-resistant isolate. Further research is required to identify and test new alternatives to ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea: the G-TOG non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection that can cause pain and discomfort, affect fertility in women and lead to epididymo-orchitis in men. Current treatment is with ceftriaxone, but there is increasing evidence of antimicrobial resistance reducing its effectiveness. Gentamicin is a potential alternative treatment requiring further evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative treatment to ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea. DESIGN: A multicentre, parallel-group, blinded, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Fourteen sexual health clinics in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 16-70 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated, untreated genital, pharyngeal or rectal gonorrhoea based on a positive Gram-stained smear on microscopy or a positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT). RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Participants were randomised using a secure web-based system, stratified by clinic. Participants, investigators and research staff assessing participants were blinded to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Allocation was to either 240 mg of gentamicin (intervention) or 500 mg of ceftriaxone (standard treatment), both administered as a single intramuscular injection. All participants also received 1 g of oral azithromycin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all infected sites, confirmed by a negative Aptima Combo 2® (Hologic Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA) NAAT, at 2 weeks post treatment. RESULTS: We randomised 720 participants, of whom 81% were men. There were 358 participants in the gentamicin group and 362 in the ceftriaxone group; 292 (82%) and 306 (85%) participants, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. Non-inferiority of gentamicin to ceftriaxone could not be demonstrated [adjusted risk difference for microbiological clearance -6.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.4% to -2.4%]. Clearance of genital infection was similar in the two groups, at 94% in the gentamicin group and 98% in the ceftriaxone group, but clearance of pharyngeal infection and rectal infection was lower in the gentamicin group (80% vs. 96% and 90% vs. 98%, respectively). Reported pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin than for ceftriaxone. The side-effect profiles were comparable between the groups. Only one serious adverse event was reported and this was deemed not to be related to the trial medication. The economic analysis found that treatment with gentamicin is not cost neutral compared with standard care, with average patient treatment costs higher for those allocated to gentamicin (£13.90, 95% CI £2.47 to £37.34) than to ceftriaxone (£6.72, 95% CI £1.36 to £17.84). LIMITATIONS: Loss to follow-up was 17% but was similar in both treatment arms. Twelve per cent of participants had a negative NAAT for gonorrhoea at their baseline visit but this was balanced between treatment groups and unlikely to have biased the trial results. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was unable to demonstrate non-inferiority of gentamicin compared with ceftriaxone in the clearance of gonorrhoea at all infected sites. Clearance at pharyngeal and rectal sites was lower for participants allocated to gentamicin than for those allocated to ceftriaxone, but was similar for genital sites in both groups. Gentamicin was associated with more severe injection site pain. However, both gentamicin and ceftriaxone appeared to be well tolerated. FUTURE WORK: Exploration of the genetic determinants of antibiotic resistance in N. gonorrhoeae will help to identify accurate markers of decreased susceptibility. Greater understanding of the immune response to infection can assist gonococcal vaccine development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51783227. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Gonorrhoea is a common infection, spread by having sex, that causes genital pain and discomfort. In women it can lead to pelvic inflammation and infertility, and in men it can lead to swelling and pain in the testicles. Currently, an antibiotic called ceftriaxone is used to treat gonorrhoea. However, there is evidence that this is becoming less effective over time and it could stop curing patients with gonorrhoea within the next few years. In this study, we wanted to find out if another antibiotic called gentamicin is as good as ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea and whether or not gentamicin could be used to treat gonorrhoea if ceftriaxone stops being effective. We recruited 720 adults with gonorrhoea and randomly allocated them (by chance) to receive treatment with an injection of either gentamicin (240 mg) or ceftriaxone (500 mg). They all also received a single dose of azithromycin (1 g) taken by mouth. Overall, 98% of participants given ceftriaxone had their gonorrhoea cured, compared with 91% of participants given gentamicin, a difference of 7%. Therefore, it is likely that doctors will continue to use ceftriaxone (plus azithromycin) as the preferred treatment. Gentamicin did have a cure rate of 94% for genital gonorrhoea and so it might be useful when ceftriaxone is not available or appropriate to use. Cure rates using gentamicin were lower than cure rates using ceftriaxone for gonorrhoea infecting the rectum (90%) and throat (80%), so it may be less useful for patients with infections at these sites. We also found that gentamicin is likely to cost the NHS more than ceftriaxone. Gentamicin caused few side effects and seems to be as safe as ceftriaxone, which is reassuring.

The Context of Sexual Risk Behaviour Among Men Who Have Sex with Men Seeking PrEP, and the Impact of PrEP on Sexual Behaviour.

There are still important gaps in our understanding of how people will incorporate PrEP into their existing HIV prevention strategies. In this paper, we explore how PrEP use impacted existing sexual risk behaviours and risk reduction strategies using qualitative data from the PROUD study. From February 2014 to January 2016, we conducted 41 in-depth interviews with gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) enrolled in the PROUD PrEP study at sexual health clinics in England. The interviews were conducted in English and were audio-recorded. The recordings were transcribed, coded and analysed using framework analysis. In the interviews, we explored participants' sexual behaviour before joining the study and among those using or who had used PrEP, changes to sexual behaviour after starting PrEP. Participants described the risk behaviour and management strategies before using PrEP, which included irregular condom use, sero-sorting, and strategic positioning. Participants described their sexual risk taking before initiating PrEP in the context of the sexualised use of drugs, geographical spaces linked with higher risk sexual norms, and digitised sexual networking, as well as problematic psychological factors that exacerbated risk taking. The findings highlight that in the main, individuals who were already having frequent condomless sex, added PrEP to the existing range of risk management strategies, influencing the boundaries of the 'rules' for some but not all. While approximately half the participants reduced other risk reduction strategies after starting PrEP, the other half did not alter their behaviours. PrEP provided an additional HIV prevention option to a cohort of GBMSM at high risk of HIV due to inconsistent use of other prevention options. In summary, PrEP provides a critical and necessary additional HIV prevention option that individuals can add to existing strategies in order to enhance protection, at least from HIV. As a daily pill, PrEP offers protection in the context of the sex cultures associated with sexualised drug use, digitised sexual applications and shifting social norms around sexual fulfilment and risk taking. PrEP can offer short or longer-term options for individuals as their sexual desires change over their life course offering protection from HIV during periods of heightened risk. PrEP should not be perceived or positioned in opposition to the existing HIV prevention toolkit, but rather as additive and as a tool that can and is having a substantial impact on HIV.

Acceptability of an open-label wait-listed trial design: Experiences from the PROUD PrEP study.

BACKGROUND: PROUD participants were randomly assigned to receive pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) immediately or after a deferred period of one-year. We report on the acceptability of this open-label wait-listed trial design. METHODS: Participants completed an acceptability questionnaire, which included categorical study acceptability data and free-text data on most and least liked aspects of the study. We also conducted in-depth interviews (IDI) with a purposely selected sub-sample of participants. RESULTS: Acceptability questionnaires were completed by 76% (415/544) of participants. After controlling for age, immediate-group participants were almost twice as likely as deferred-group participants to complete the questionnaire (AOR:1.86;95%CI:1.24,2.81). In quantitative data, the majority of participants in both groups found the wait-listed design acceptable when measured by satisfaction of joining the study, intention to remain in the study, and interest in joining a subsequent study. However, three-quarters thought that the chance of being in the deferred-group might put other volunteers off joining the study. In free-text responses, data collection tools were the most frequently reported least liked aspect of the study. A fifth of deferred participants reported 'being deferred' as the thing they least liked about the study. However, more deferred participants disliked the data collection tools than the fact that they had to wait a year to access PrEP. Participants in the IDIs had a good understanding of the rationale for the open-label wait-listed study design. Most accepted the design but acknowledged they were, or would have been, disappointed to be randomised to the deferred group. Five of the 25 participants interviewed reported some objection to the wait-listed design. CONCLUSION: The quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that in an environment where PrEP was not available, the rationale for the wait-listed trial design was well understood and generally acceptable to most participants in this study.