Performance evaluation of automated urine microscopy as a rapid, non-invasive approach for the diagnosis of non-gonococcal urethritis.

OBJECTIVES: Gram-stained urethral smear (GSUS), the standard point-of-care test for non-gonococcal urethritis (NGU) is operator dependent and poorly specific. The performance of rapid automated urine flow cytometry (AUFC) of first void urine (FVU) white cell counts (UWCC) for predicting Mycoplasma genitalium and Chlamydia trachomatis urethral infections was assessed and its application to asymptomatic infection was evaluated. METHODS: Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, determining FVU-UWCC threshold for predicting M. genitalium or C. trachomatis infection was performed on 208 'training' samples from symptomatic patients and subsequently validated using 228 additional FVUs obtained from prospective unselected patients. RESULTS: An optimal diagnostic threshold of >29 UWC/µL gave sensitivities and specificities for either infection of 81.5% (95% CI 65.1% to 91.6%) and 85.8% (79.5% to 90.4%), respectively, compared with 86.8% (71.1% to 95%) and 64.7% (56.9% to 71.7%), respectively, for GSUS, using the training set samples. FVU-UWCC demonstrated sensitivities and specificities of 69.2% (95% CI 48.1% to 84.9%) and 92% (87.2% to 95.2%), respectively, when using validation samples. In asymptomatic patients where GSUS was not used, AUFC would have enabled more infections to be detected compared with clinical considerations only (71.4% vs 28.6%; p=0.03). The correlation between UWCC and bacterial load was stronger for M. genitalium compared with C. trachomatis (τ=0.426, p≤0.001 vs τ=0.295, p=0.022, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: AUFC offers improved specificity over microscopy for predicting C. trachomatis or M. genitalium infection. Universal AUFC may enable non-invasive diagnosis of asymptomatic NGU at the PoC. The degree of urethral inflammation exhibits a stronger association with pathogen load for M. genitalium compared with C. trachomatis

Impact of deploying multiple point-of-care tests with a 'sample first' approach on a sexual health clinical care pathway. A service evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess clinical service value of STI point-of-care test (POCT) use in a 'sample first' clinical pathway (patients providing samples on arrival at clinic, before clinician consultation). Specific outcomes were: patient acceptability; whether a rapid nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for Chlamydia trachomatis/Neisseria gonorrhoeae (CT/NG) could be used as a POCT in practice; feasibility of non-NAAT POCT implementation for Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) and bacterial vaginosis (BV); impact on patient diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: Service evaluation in a south London sexual health clinic. Symptomatic female and male patients and sexual contacts of CT/NG-positive individuals provided samples for diagnostic testing on clinic arrival, prior to clinical consultation. Tests included routine culture and microscopy; CT/NG (GeneXpert) NAAT; non-NAAT POCTs for TV and BV. RESULTS: All 70 (35 males, 35 females) patients approached participated. The 'sample first' pathway was acceptable, with >90% reporting they were happy to give samples on arrival and receive results in the same visit. Non-NAAT POCT results were available for all patients prior to leaving clinic; rapid CT/NG results were available for only 21.4% (15/70; 5 males, 10 females) of patients prior to leaving clinic. Known negative CT/NG results led to two females avoiding presumptive treatment, and one male receiving treatment directed at possible Mycoplasma genitalium infection causing non-gonococcal urethritis. Non-NAAT POCTs detected more positives than routine microscopy (TV 3 vs 2; BV 24 vs 7), resulting in more patients receiving treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A 'sample first' clinical pathway to enable multiple POCT use was acceptable to patients and feasible in a busy sexual health clinic, but rapid CT/NG processing time was too long to enable POCT use. There is need for further development to improve test processing times to enable POC use of rapid NAATs

2016 United Kingdom national guideline on the sexual health care of men who have sex with men.

This guideline is intended for use in UK Genitourinary medicine clinics and sexual health services but is likely to be of relevance in all sexual health settings, including general practice and Contraception and Sexual Health (CASH) services, where men who have sex with men (MSM) seek sexual health care or where addressing the sexual health needs of MSM may have public health benefits. For the purposes of this document, MSM includes all gay, bisexual and all other males who have sex with other males and both cis and trans men. This document does not provide guidance on the treatment of particular conditions where this is covered in other British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) Guidelines but outlines best practice in multiple aspects of the sexual health care of MSM. Where prevention of sexually transmitted infections including HIV can be addressed as an integral part of clinical care, this is consistent with the concept of combination prevention and is included. The document is designed primarily to provide guidance on the direct clinical care of MSM but also makes reference to the design and delivery of services with the aim of supporting clinicians and commissioners in providing effective services. Methodology This document was produced in accordance with the guidance set out in the BASHH CEG's document 'Framework for guideline development and assessment' published in 2010 at http://www.bashh.org/guidelines and with reference to the Agree II instrument. Following the production of the updated framework in April 2015, the GRADE system for assessing evidence was adopted and the draft recommendations were regraded. Search strategy (see also Appendix 1) Ovid Medline 1946 to December 2014, Medline daily update, Embase 1974 to December 2014, Pubmed NeLH Guidelines Database, Cochrane library from 2000 to December 2014. Search language English only. The search for Section 3 was conducted on PubMed to December 2014. Priority was given to peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals, although for many issues evidence includes conference abstracts listed on the Embase database. In addition, for 'Identification of problematic recreational drug and alcohol use' section and 'Sexual problems and dysfunctions in MSM' section, searches included PsycINFO. Methods Article titles and abstracts were reviewed and if relevant the full text article was obtained. Priority was given to randomised controlled trial and systematic review evidence, and recommendations made and graded on the basis of best available evidence. Piloting and feedback The first draft of the guideline was circulated to the writing group and to a small group of relevant experts, third sector partners and patient representatives who were invited to comment on the whole document and specifically on particular sections. The revised draft was reviewed by the CEG and then reviewed by the BASHH patient/public panel and posted on the BASHH website for public consultation. The final draft was piloted before publication. Guideline update The guidelines will be reviewed and revised in five years' time, 2022

Bankerna 1996, juni

Suomen virallinen tilasto (SVT