Feasibility of anorectal chlamydia testing in women:a cross-sectional survey among general practitioners

BACKGROUND: Anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) may be clinically relevant for women in general practice. Although anorectal CT testing in this setting may prevent underdiagnosis and undertreatment, its feasibility is questioned as GPs currently rarely order anorectal CT tests, for yet unknown reasons. OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of anorectal CT testing in women in general practice. METHODS: GPs across the Netherlands were invited directly (n = 1481) and by snowball sampling (n = 330) to join an online cross-sectional survey that asked about the acceptability of and barriers for (standard) anorectal testing in women during CT-related consultations. Data were analysed with univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: The questionnaire was opened by 514 respondents (28%, 514/1811) and 394 fully completed it. GPs' acceptability of anorectal testing by either self-sampling or provider-sampling was high (86%). Twenty-eight percent of GPs felt neutral, and 43% felt accepting towards standard anorectal testing. Nevertheless, 40% of GPs had never tested for anorectal CT in women, which was associated with a reported difficulty in asking about anal sex (odds ratio [OR]: 3.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-7.80), infrequency of anal sexual history taking (OR: 11.50, 95% CI: 6.39-20.72), low frequency of urogenital CT testing (OR 3.44, 95%-CI: 1.86-6.38) and with practicing in a non-urban area (OR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.48-3.48). Acceptability of anorectal testing was not associated with the studied factors. CONCLUSION: This quantitative survey shows that anorectal CT testing is feasible based on its acceptability, but is likely hindered by a lower awareness of (anorectal) CT in GPs

Demographic risk factors for COVID-19 infection, severity, ICU admission and death: a meta-analysis of 59 studies

Objective We aimed to describe the associations of age and sex with the risk of COVID-19 in different severity stages ranging from infection to death. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources PubMed and Embase through 4 May 2020. Study selection We considered cohort and case-control studies that evaluated differences in age and sex on the risk of COVID-19 infection, disease severity, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. Data extraction and synthesis We screened and included studies using standardised electronic data extraction forms and we pooled data from published studies and data acquired by contacting authors using random effects meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results We screened 11.550 titles and included 59 studies comprising 36.470 patients in the analyses. The methodological quality of the included papers was high (8.2 out of 9). Men had a higher risk for infection with COVID-19 than women (relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.12). When infected, they also had a higher risk for severe COVID-19 disease (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27), a higher need for intensive care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.74) and a higher risk of death (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.91). The analyses also showed that patients aged 70 years and above have a higher infection risk (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.81), a higher risk for severe COVID-19 disease (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.32), a higher need for intensive care (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.59 to 4.60) and a higher risk of death once infected (RR 3.61, 95% CI 2.70 to 4.84) compared with patients younger than 70 years. Conclusions Meta-analyses on 59 studies comprising 36.470 patients showed that men and patients aged 70 and above have a higher risk for COVID-19 infection, severe disease, ICU admission and death. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020180085.Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Rehabilitatio