Article Text

Download PDFPDF

O02.1 What is the optimal testing strategy for oropharyngeal neisseria gonorrhoeae in women visiting STI clinics?
Free
  1. Geneviève Van Liere1,2,
  2. Nicole Dukers-Muijrers1,2,
  3. Sophie Kuizenga-Wessel3,
  4. Hannelore Götz4,5,6,
  5. Christian Hoebe1,2
  1. 1Public Health Service South Limburg, Dept of Sexual Health, Infectious Diseases and Environmental Health, Heerlen, The Netherlands
  2. 2Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Dept of Medical Microbiology, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht, The Netherlands
  3. 3Public Health Service Haaglanden, Dept of Sexual health, Den Haag, The Netherlands
  4. 4Public Health Service Rotterdam Rijnmond, Dept of Infectious Disease Control, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  5. 5Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dept of Public Health, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  6. 6National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Epidemiology and Surveillance Unit, Bilthoven, The Netherlands

Abstract

Background Oropharyngeal Neisseria gonorrhoeae (N. gonorrhoeae) is not routinely tested for in women visiting Dutch STI clinics. It is hypothesized that many oropharyngeal N. gonorrhoeae infections remain undetected due to its asymptomatic nature, creating a reservoir for ongoing transmission and drug resistance. It is yet unknown what the optimal testing policy is for women, as data on universal screening are missing.

Methods Surveillance data 2008–2017 from all Dutch STI clinics were used (n=546,246 consultations). Oropharyngeal testing policy was defined as (1) universal screening, that is >85% of consultations included oropharyngeal testing per clinic per year, (2) selective testing (<85% tested) or (3) incidental testing (0.1–5% tested). The proportion infections missed using selective testing was calculated by extrapolating N. gonorrhoeae positivity found by routine universal screening. Independent risk factors for oropharyngeal N. gonorrhoeae were assessed among women routinely universally screened between 2016–2017 using backward multivariable logistic regression analyses.

Results Routine universal screening was used in 11% (n=57,359) of consultations, selective testing in 81% (n=444,283) and incidental testing in 8% (n=44,108). Oropharyngeal N. gonorrhoeae positivity was comparable between universal and selective; 1.4%(95%CI 1.3–1.5,n=703), 1.4%(95%CI 1.3–1.3,n=1858,P=0.68), and higher in incidental 2.8%(95%CI 1.9–3.9,n=30, P<0.01). Selective testing missed 89% (n=5,517) of oropharyngeal infections (95%CI 88%-90%). The proportion oropharyngeal-only was 47% in routine universal screening and 52% in selective testing. Independent risk factors were being notified for any STI (OR1.3,95%CI1.03–1.5), concurrent urogenital N. gonorrhoeae (OR80.0,95%CI59.0–108.4) and commercial sex work(OR4.1,95%CI2.8–5.9). When using the risk factors except urogenital N. gonorrhoeae as testing indicators, 27.8%(n=5,418) of all women would be tested, finding 55.6% (n=119) of infections.

Conclusion Selective testing potentially misses almost 90% of oropharyngeal N. gonorrhoeae in women, of which almost half were oropharyngeal-only infections. Using two risk factors as testing indicators, half of all oropharyngeal N. gonorrhoeae infections would be detected by testing almost one-third of women. This seems like a valid and minimal testing strategy for women, as is advocated in the Dutch STI-guidelines.

Disclosure No significant relationships.

  • Neisseria gonorrhoeae

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.