Community and Health Care Provider Preferences for Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Interventions for Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men: e-Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Canadian clinical guidelines recommend at least annual and up to quarterly bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing among sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM). However, testing rates are suboptimal. Innovative solutions are needed to close the gap because there is currently limited knowledge on how best to approach this issue. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to build consensus regarding interventions with the greatest potential for improving local STI testing services for GBM communities in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, using a web-based e-Delphi process. METHODS: The e-Delphi method involves using a panel format to conduct successive rounds of prioritization, with feedback between rounds, to determine priorities among groups. We recruited experts separately from the community (GBM who sought or underwent STI testing in the preceding 18 months; conducted between October 2019 and November 2019) and health care providers (those who offered STI testing to GBM in the past 12 months; conducted between February 2020 and May 2020). The experts prioritized 6 to 8 potential interventions on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not a priority to definitely a priority over 3 survey rounds and ranked their top 3 interventions. Consensus was defined as ≥60% within a ±1 response point. Summaries of responses were provided in successive rounds. We reported the percentage of a priority (encompassing somewhat a priority, a priority, and definitely a priority responses) at the end of the final round of the survey. RESULTS: Of the community experts (CEs), 84% (43/51) completed all rounds; 19% (8/43) were living with HIV; 37% (16/43) were HIV negative and on pre-exposure prophylaxis; and 42% (18/43) were HIV negative and not on pre-exposure prophylaxis. We reached consensus on 6 interventions: client reminders (41/43, 95%), express testing (38/43, 88%), routine testing (36/43, 84%), an online booking app (36/43, 84%), online-based testing (33/43, 77%), and nurse-led testing (31/43, 72%). The CEs favored convenient interventions that also maintain a relationship with their provider. Of the provider experts (PEs), 77% (37/48) completed all rounds; 59% (22/37) were physicians. Consensus was reached on the same 6 interventions (range 25/37, 68%, to 39/39, 100%) but not for provider alerts (7/37, 19%) and provider audit and feedback (6/37, 16%). Express testing, online-based testing, and nurse-led testing were prioritized by >95% (>37/39) of the PEs by the end of round 2 because of streamlined processes and decreased need to see a provider. CONCLUSIONS: Both panels were enthusiastic about innovations that make STI testing more efficient, with express testing rating highly in both the prioritizations and top 3 rankings. However, CEs preferred convenient interventions that involved their provider, whereas PEs favored interventions that prioritized patient independence and reduced patient-provider time. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/13801.

Survey of Health Care Providers' Practices and Opinions Regarding Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men.

BACKGROUND: Rates of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to rise among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) globally. Testing and treatment can prevent morbidity and transmission. However, testing rates remain suboptimal. METHODS: In 2018, we conducted an online cross-sectional survey to explore STI testing ordering practices, 14 potential barriers for testing and 11 possible ways to improve testing from the perspective of health care providers in Toronto, Ontario. An estimated 172 providers were invited from primary care and sexual health clinic settings. Providers were eligible to complete the survey if they provided care for ≥1 GBMSM per week and were involved in the decision-making process in providing STI tests. We used descriptive statistics to summarize survey responses. RESULTS: Ninety-five providers (55% response rate) participated, of whom 68% worked in primary care and 32% in sexual health settings. Most (66%) saw ≤10 GBMSM clients per week. In primary care (65%) and sexual health (40%) clinic settings, insufficient consultation time was the most common barrier to STI testing. In primary care, other common barriers included difficulty introducing testing during unrelated consultations (53%), forgetting (47%), and patients being sexually inactive (31%) or declining testing (27%). The following were most likely to improve testing: express/fast-track testing services (89%), provider alerts when patients are due for testing (87%), patient-collected specimens (84%), nurse-led STI testing (79%), and standing orders (79%). CONCLUSIONS: Promising interventions to improve bacterial STI testing included initiatives that simplify and expedite testing and expand testing delivery to other health care professionals.

Community-Directed Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Interventions Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Protocol for an E-Delphi Study in Toronto, Canada.

BACKGROUND: HIV-positive and HIV-negative (gay, bisexual, and other) men who have sex with men (MSM) have experienced a dramatic increase in bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs)-syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia. STI testing and treatment mitigate adverse health outcomes and substantially reduce transmission; yet, testing rates remain below recommended levels. Innovation is needed to produce the required increases in testing levels, frequency, and the use of appropriate testing technologies in ways that are engaging, nonstigmatizing, and acceptable to men. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to build consensus with regard to interventions with the greatest potential for improving local STI testing services for MSM communities in Toronto, Canada. METHODS: Following a literature review of evidence regarding the effectiveness of novel testing interventions, and focus groups, and surveys to describe local barriers and facilitators of testing among MSM, we will conduct a Web-based, modified Delphi study (e-Delphi). We will form expert panels of community members and STI test providers. Panelists will rate potential interventions in terms of their priority, using a 7-point Likert scale from definitely not a priority to definitely a priority. They will also rank their preferences by selecting their top 3 preferred interventions. Surveys will be distributed in 3 rounds, with feedback on the distribution of responses from preceding rounds provided in rounds 2 and 3. We will define consensus as having ≥60% (18/30) members indicate a preference within 2 adjacent response points. Qualitative data on disagreements will be obtained using open-ended text responses to explain for ratings and rankings that are different from the majority. RESULTS: On the basis of a literature review and identification of barriers and facilitators to STI testing among community members and test providers in Toronto, we have selected 8 potential interventions for inclusion in the e-Delphi panel surveys. These include 4 interventions that streamline STI testing for asymptomatic individuals, 2 interventions that are targeted at clients and 2 interventions that are targeted at providers. CONCLUSIONS: Findings will provide community direction for informed decision making regarding the implementation of STI testing interventions in this setting. They will characterize the intervention climate for innovation to STI testing services, including perceived needs for changes to test delivery, relative priorities for change, and readiness for implementation. These methods may be transferable to other urban jurisdictions experiencing similar epidemics and for other contexts where stakeholder input is needed to manage sensitive areas of concern. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/13801.

Mycoplasma genitalium in Toronto, Ont: Estimates of prevalence and macrolide resistance.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of Mycoplasma genitalium in Toronto, Ont; detect mutations associated with macrolide and fluoroquinolone resistance; and describe treatment outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study. SETTING: A sexual health clinic in Toronto. PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive sample of men and women attending the sexual health clinic between September 1, 2013, and December 20, 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Participants underwent testing for M genitalium, along with standard sexually transmitted infection screening. All samples that had positive results for M genitalium were tested for mutations associated with resistance to macrolides and fluoroquinolones. Mycoplasma genitalium treatment was based on resistance profile and verified with a test of cure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Positive results for M genitalium and antibiotic resistance.

Neisseria gonorrhoeae treatment failure and susceptibility to cefixime in Toronto, Canada.

IMPORTANCE: Although cephalosporins are the cornerstone of treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections, cefixime is the only oral antimicrobial option. Increased minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) to cefixime have been identified worldwide and have been associated with reports of clinical failure. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of clinical treatment failure of N. gonorrhoeae infections associated with the use of cefixime. DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION: A retrospective cohort study of culture-positive N. gonorrhoeae infections at a single sexual health clinic in Toronto, Canada, that routinely performs test of cure. The cohort comprised N. gonorrhoeae culture-positive individuals identified between May 1, 2010, and April 30, 2011, treated with cefixime as recommended by Public Health Agency of Canada guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cefixime treatment failure, defined as the repeat isolation of N. gonorrhoeae at the test-of-cure visit identical to the pretreatment isolate by molecular typing and explicit denial of reexposure. RESULTS: There were 291 N. gonorrhoeae culture-positive individuals identified. Of 133 who returned for test of cure, 13 were culture positive; 9 patients were determined to have experienced cefixime treatment failure, involving urethral (n = 4), pharyngeal (n = 2), and rectal (n = 3) sites. The overall rate of clinical treatment failure among those who had a test of cure was 6.77% (95% CI, 3.14%-12.45%; 9/133). The rate of clinical failure associated with a cefixime MIC of 0.12 µg/mL or greater was 25.0% (95% CI, 10.69%-44.87%; 7/28) compared with 1.90% (95% CI, 0.23%-6.71%; 2/105) of infections with cefixime MICs less than 0.12 µg/mL, with a relative risk of 13.13 (95% CI, 2.88-59.72; P < .001). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The rate of clinical failure following treatment of N. gonorrhoeae infections with cefixime was relatively high at a Toronto clinic and was associated with elevated MICs.