HIV prevalence and undiagnosed infection among a community sample of gay and bisexual men in Scotland, 2005-2011: implications for HIV testing policy and prevention

<b>Objective</b><p></p> To examine HIV prevalence, HIV testing behaviour, undiagnosed infection and risk factors for HIV positivity among a community sample of gay men in Scotland.<p></p> <b>Methods</b><p></p> Cross-sectional survey of gay and bisexual men attending commercial gay venues in Glasgow and Edinburgh, Scotland with voluntary anonymous HIV testing of oral fluid samples in 2011. A response rate of 65.2% was achieved (1515 participants).<p></p> <b>Results</b><p></p> HIV prevalence (4.8%, 95% confidence interval, CI 3.8% to 6.2%) remained stable compared to previous survey years (2005 and 2008) and the proportion of undiagnosed infection among HIV-positive men (25.4%) remained similar to that recorded in 2008. Half of the participants who provided an oral fluid sample stated that they had had an HIV test in the previous 12 months; this proportion is significantly higher when compared to previous study years (50.7% versus 33.8% in 2005, p<0.001). Older age (>25 years) was associated with HIV positivity (1.8% in those <25 versus 6.4% in older ages group) as was a sexually transmitted infection (STI) diagnosis within the previous 12 months (adjusted odds ratio 2.13, 95% CI 1.09–4.14). There was no significant association between age and having an STI or age and any of the sexual behaviours recorded.<p></p> <b>Conclusion</b><p></p> HIV transmission continues to occur among gay and bisexual men in Scotland. Despite evidence of recent testing within the previous six months, suggesting a willingness to test, the current opt-out policy may have reached its limit with regards to maximising HIV test uptake. Novel strategies are required to improve regular testing opportunities and more frequent testing as there are implications for the use of other biomedical HIV interventions.<p></p&gt

Increasing chlamydia screening tests in general practice: A modi fied Zelen prospective cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating a complex intervention based on the theory of planned behaviour

Objective: To determine if a structured complex intervention increases opportunistic chlamydia screening testing of patients aged 15-24 years attending English general practitioner (GP) practices. Methods: A prospective, Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial with a modified Zelen design involving 160 practices in South West England in 2010. The intervention was based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). It comprised of practice-based education with up to two additional contacts to increase the importance of screening to GP staff and their confidence to offer tests through skill development (including videos). Practical resources (targets, posters, invitation cards, computer reminders, newsletters including feedback) aimed to actively influence social cognitions of staff, increasing their testing intention. Results: Data from 76 intervention and 81 control practices were analysed. In intervention practices, chlamydia screening test rates were 2.43/100 15-24-yearolds registered preintervention, 4.34 during intervention and 3.46 postintervention; controls testing rates were 2.61/ 100 registered patients prior intervention, 3.0 during intervention and 2.82 postintervention. During the intervention period, testing in intervention practices was 1.76 times as great (CI 1.24 to 2.48) as controls; this persisted for 9 months postintervention (1.57 times as great, CI 1.27 to 2.30). Chlamydia infections detected increased in intervention practices from 2.1/1000 registered 15-24-year-olds prior intervention to 2.5 during the intervention compared with 2.0 and 2.3/1000 in controls (Estimated Rate Ratio intervention versus controls 1.4 (CI 1.01 to 1.93). Conclusions: This complex intervention doubled chlamydia screening tests in fully engaged practices. The modified Zelen design gave realistic measures of practice full engagement (63) and efficacy of this educational intervention in general practice; it should be used more often. Trial registration: The trial was registered on the UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio database. UKCRN number 9722

Incentive payments to general practitioners aimed at increasing opportunistic testing of young women for chlamydia: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Financial incentives have been used for many years internationally to improve quality of care in general practice. The aim of this pilot study was to determine if offering general practitioners (GP) a small incentive payment per test would increase chlamydia testing in women aged 16 to 24 years, attending general practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>General practice clinics (n = 12) across Victoria, Australia, were cluster randomized to receive either a $AUD5 payment per chlamydia test or no payment for testing 16 to 24 year old women for chlamydia. Data were collected on the number of chlamydia tests and patient consultations undertaken by each GP over two time periods: 12 month pre-trial and 6 month trial period. The impact of the intervention was assessed using a mixed effects logistic regression model, accommodating for clustering at GP level.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Testing increased from 6.2% (95% CI: 4.2, 8.4) to 8.8% (95% CI: 4.8, 13.0) (p = 0.1) in the control group and from 11.5% (95% CI: 4.6, 18.5) to 13.4% (95% CI: 9.5, 17.5) (p = 0.4) in the intervention group. Overall, the intervention did not result in a significant increase in chlamydia testing in general practice. The odds ratio for an increase in testing in the intervention group compared to the control group was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.6, 1.2). Major barriers to increased chlamydia testing reported by GPs included a lack of time, difficulty in remembering to offer testing and a lack of patient awareness around testing.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A small financial incentive alone did not increase chlamydia testing among young women attending general practice. It is possible small incentive payments in conjunction with reminder and feedback systems may be effective, as may higher financial incentive payments. Further research is required to determine if financial incentives can increase testing in Australian general practice, the type and level of financial scheme required and whether incentives needs to be part of a multi-faceted package.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12608000499381.</p

Better than nothing? Patient-delivered partner therapy and partner notification for chlamydia: the views of Australian general practitioners

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Genital chlamydia is the most commonly notified sexually transmissible infection (STI) in Australia and worldwide and can have serious reproductive health outcomes. Partner notification, testing and treatment are important facets of chlamydia control. Traditional methods of partner notification are not reaching enough partners to effectively control transmission of chlamydia. Patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) has been shown to improve the treatment of sexual partners. In Australia, General Practitioners (GPs) are responsible for the bulk of chlamydia testing, diagnosis, treatment and follow up. This study aimed to determine the views and practices of Australian general practitioners (GPs) in relation to partner notification and PDPT for chlamydia and explored GPs' perceptions of their patients' barriers to notifying partners of a chlamydia diagnosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 40 general practitioners (GPs) from rural, regional and urban Australia from November 2006 to March 2007. Topics covered: GPs' current practice and views about partner notification, perceived barriers and useful supports, previous use of and views regarding PDPT.</p> <p>Transcripts were imported into NVivo7 and subjected to thematic analysis. Data saturation was reached after 32 interviews had been completed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Perceived barriers to patients telling partners (patient referral) included: stigma; age and cultural background; casual or long-term relationship, ongoing relationship or not. Barriers to GPs undertaking partner notification (provider referral) included: lack of time and staff; lack of contact details; uncertainty about the legality of contacting partners and whether this constitutes breach of patient confidentiality; and feeling both personally uncomfortable and inadequately trained to contact someone who is not their patient. GPs were divided on the use of PDPT - many felt concerned that it is not best clinical practice but many also felt that it is better than nothing.</p> <p>GPs identified the following factors which they considered would facilitate partner notification: clear clinical guidelines; a legal framework around partner notification; a formal chlamydia screening program; financial incentives; education and practical support for health professionals, and raising awareness of chlamydia in the community, in particular amongst young people.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>GPs reported some partners do not seek medical treatment even after they are notified of being a sexual contact of a patient with chlamydia. More routine use of PDPT may help address this issue however GPs in this study had negative attitudes to the use of PDPT. Appropriate guidelines and legislation may make the use of PDPT more acceptable to Australian GPs.</p

The experience of providing young people attending general practice with an online risk assessment tool to assess their own sexual health risk

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Targeted chlamydia screening has been advocated to reduce chlamydia associated reproductive sequelae. General practitioners are well positioned to play a major role in chlamydia control. The primary aim of this pilot study was to measure the effect of offering an online sexual health assessment tool, <it>Youth Check Your Risk</it>, on chlamydia testing rates among young people attending general practices. The secondary aim was to test the acceptability of the tool among general practitioners and young people.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>General practitioners at three practices in Melbourne, Australia, referred patients aged 16 to 24 years to <it>Youth Check Your Risk </it><url>http://www.checkyourrisk.org.au</url> for use post-consultation between March to October 2007. The proportion of young people tested for chlamydia before and during the implementation of the tool was compared. Acceptability was assessed through a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire with general practitioners, and anonymous online data provided by <it>Youth Check Your Risk </it>users.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The intervention did not result in any significant increases in the proportion of 16 to 24 year old males (2.7% to 3.0%) or females (6.3% to 6.4%) tested for chlamydia. A small increase in the proportion of 16 to 19 year old females tested was seen (4.1% to 7.2%). Of the 2997 patients seen during the intervention phase, 871 (29.1%) were referred to <it>Youth Check Your Risk </it>and 120 used it (13.8%). Major reasons for low referral rates reported by practitioners included lack of time, discomfort with raising the issue of testing, and difficulty in remembering to refer patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Offering an online sexual risk assessment tool in general practice did not significantly increase the proportion of young people tested for chlamydia, with GPs identifying a number of barriers to referring young people to <it>Youth Check Your Risk</it>. Future interventions aimed at increasing chlamydia screening in general practice with the aid of an online risk assessment tool need to identify and overcome barriers to testing.</p

Telling partners about chlamydia: how acceptable are the new technologies?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Partner notification is accepted as a vital component in the control of chlamydia. However, in reality, many sexual partners of individuals diagnosed with chlamydia are never informed of their risk. The newer technologies of email and SMS have been used as a means of improving partner notification rates. This study explored the use and acceptability of different partner notification methods to help inform the development of strategies and resources to increase the number of partners notified.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 40 people who were recently diagnosed with chlamydia from three sexual health centres and two general practices across three Australian jurisdictions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most participants chose to contact their partners either in person (56%) or by phone (44%). Only 17% chose email or SMS. Participants viewed face-to-face as the "gold standard" in partner notification because it demonstrated caring, respect and courage. Telephone contact, while considered insensitive by some, was often valued because it was quick, convenient and less confronting. Email was often seen as less personal while SMS was generally considered the least acceptable method for telling partners. There was also concern that emails and SMS could be misunderstood, not taken seriously or shown to others. Despite these, email and SMS were seen to be appropriate and useful in some circumstances. Letters, both from the patients or from their doctor, were viewed more favourably but were seldom used.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These findings suggest that many people diagnosed with chlamydia are reluctant to use the new technologies for partner notification, except in specific circumstances, and our efforts in developing partner notification resources may best be focused on giving patients the skills and confidence for personal interaction.</p

Cellular Robustness Conferred by Genetic Crosstalk Underlies Resistance against Chemotherapeutic Drug Doxorubicin in Fission Yeast

10.1371/journal.pone.0055041PLoS ONE81

CpG methylation potentiates pixantrone and doxorubicin-induced DNA damage and is a marker of drug sensitivity

DNA methylation is an epigenetic modification of the mammalian genome that occurs predominantly at cytosine residues of the CpG dinucleotide. Following formaldehyde activation, pixantrone alkylates DNA and particularly favours the CpG motif. Aberrations in CpG methylation patterns are a feature of most cancer types, a characteristic that may determine their susceptibility to specific drug treatments. Given their common target, DNA methylation may modulate the DNA damage induced by formaldehyde-activated pixantrone. In vitro transcription, mass spectrometry and oligonucleotide band shift assays were utilized to establish that pixantrone–DNA adduct formation was consistently enhanced 2–5-fold at discrete methylated CpG doublets. The methylation-mediated enhancement was exquisitely sensitive to the position of the methyl substituent since methylation at neighboring cytosine residues failed to confer an increase in pixantrone–DNA alkylation. Covalent modification of DNA by formaldehyde-activated doxorubicin, but not cisplatin, was augmented by neighbouring CpG methylation, indicating that modulation of binding by CpG methylation is not a general feature of all alkylators. HCT116 colon cancer cells vastly deficient in CpG methylation were 12- and 10-fold more resistant to pixantrone and doxorubicin relative to the wild-type line, suggesting that these drugs may selectively recognize the aberrant CpG methylation profiles characteristic of most tumour types

Young pregnant women's views on the acceptability of screening for chlamydia as part of routine antenatal care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In pregnancy, untreated chlamydia infection has been associated with adverse outcomes for both mother and infant. Like most women, pregnant women infected with chlamydia do not report genital symptoms, and are therefore unlikely to be aware of their infection. The aim of this study was to determine the acceptability of screening pregnant women aged 16-25 years for chlamydia as part of routine antenatal care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>As part of a larger prospective, cross-sectional study of pregnant women aged 16-25 years attending antenatal services across Melbourne, Australia, 100 women were invited to participate in a face-to-face, semi structured interview on the acceptability of screening for chlamydia during pregnancy. Women infected with chlamydia were oversampled (n = 31).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Women had low levels of awareness of chlamydia before the test, retained relatively little knowledge after the test and commonly had misconceptions around chlamydia transmission, testing and sequelae. Women indicated a high level of acceptance and support for chlamydia screening, expressing their willingness to undertake whatever care was necessary to ensure the health of their baby. There was a strong preference for urine testing over other methods of specimen collection. Women questioned why testing was not already conducted alongside other antenatal STI screening tests, particularly in view of the risks chlamydia poses to the baby. Women who tested positive for chlamydia had mixed reactions, however, most felt relief and gratitude at having had chlamydia detected and reported high levels of partner support.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Chlamydia screening as part of routine antenatal care was considered highly acceptable among young pregnant women who recognized the benefits of screening and strongly supported its implementation as part of routine antenatal care. The acceptability of screening is important to the uptake of chlamydia screening in future antenatal screening strategies.</p