Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Primum non-nocere: Is it time to stop screening for Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis in men who have sex with men taking HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis?
  1. Thibaut Vanbaelen1,
  2. Chris Kenyon2
  1. 1 Department of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerpen, Belgium
  2. 2 Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerpen, Belgium
  1. Correspondence to Dr Chris Kenyon, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerpen, Belgium; ckenyon{at}itg.be

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

A number of authors have recently questioned whether we should be screening asymptomatic men who have sex with men (MSM) for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (Ng) and Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct).1–3 These authors have noted that screening for these infections results in very high levels of antimicrobial consumption with the attendant risks of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) induction.2 This is concerning if one considers that the decision to screen for these infections was not based on evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).1 Screening guidelines typically require high-quality RCTs to show clear evidence of net benefit of screening before a screening programme can be introduced.4

We recently published the results of the first RCT assessing the efficacy of three-site, three monthly screening (3×3 screening) for Ng/Ct versus non-screening in reducing the incidence of these infections among MSM taking HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).4 We found that 3×3 screening was associated with a slightly decreased incidence of Ct infections, but not Ng infections. This finding …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Anna Maria Geretti

  • Contributors TV wrote a first draft, CK provided edits and both authors approved the final draft.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.