Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV

BACKGROUND Partner notification (PN) is the process whereby sexual partners of an index patient are informed of their exposure to a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and the need to obtain treatment. For the person (index patient) with a curable STI, PN aims to eradicate infection and prevent re-infection. For sexual partners, PN aims to identify and treat undiagnosed STIs. At the level of sexual networks and populations, the aim of PN is to interrupt chains of STI transmission. For people with viral STI, PN aims to identify undiagnosed infections, which can facilitate access for their sexual partners to treatment and help prevent transmission. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of different PN strategies in people with STI, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. SEARCH METHODS We searched electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE) without language restrictions. We scanned reference lists of potential studies and previous reviews and contacted experts in the field. We searched three trial registries. We conducted the most recent search on 31 August 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing two or more PN strategies. Four main PN strategies were included: patient referral, expedited partner therapy, provider referral and contract referral. Patient referral means that the patient notifies their sexual partners, either with (enhanced patient referral) or without (simple patient referral) additional verbal or written support. In expedited partner therapy, the patient delivers medication or a prescription for medication to their partner(s) without the need for a medical examination of the partner. In provider referral, health service personnel notify the partners. In contract referral, the index patient is encouraged to notify partner, with the understanding that the partners will be contacted if they do not visit the health service by a certain date. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We analysed data according to paired partner referral strategies. We organised the comparisons first according to four main PN strategies (1. enhanced patient referral, 2. expedited partner therapy, 3. contract referral, 4. provider referral). We compared each main strategy with simple patient referral and then with each other, if trials were available. For continuous outcome measures, we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For dichotomous variables, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We performed meta-analyses where appropriate. We performed a sensitivity analysis for the primary outcome re-infection rate of the index patient by excluding studies with attrition of greater than 20%. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS We included 26 trials (17,578 participants, 9015 women and 8563 men). Five trials were conducted in developing countries. Only two trials were conducted among HIV-positive patients. There was potential for selection bias, owing to the methods of allocation used and of performance bias, owing to the lack of blinding in most included studies. Seven trials had attrition of greater than 20%, increasing the risk of bias.The review found moderate-quality evidence that expedited partner therapy is better than simple patient referral for preventing re-infection of index patients when combining trials of STIs that caused urethritis or cervicitis (6 trials; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89, I(2) = 39%). When studies with attrition greater than 20% were excluded, the effect of expedited partner therapy was attenuated (2 trials; RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.04, I(2) = 0%). In trials restricted to index patients with chlamydia, the effect was attenuated (2 trials; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.35, I(2) = 22%). Expedited partner therapy also increased the number of partners treated per index patient (three trials) when compared with simple patient referral in people with chlamydia or gonorrhoea (MD 0.43, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.58) or trichomonas (MD 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.67), and people with any STI syndrome (MD 0.5, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.67). Expedited partner therapy was not superior to enhanced patient referral in preventing re-infection (3 trials; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.53, I(2) = 33%, low-quality evidence). Home sampling kits for partners (four trials) did not result in lower rates of re-infection in the index case (measured in one trial), or higher numbers of partners elicited (three trials), notified (two trials) or treated (one trial) when compared with simple patient referral. There was no consistent evidence for the relative effects of provider, contract or other patient referral methods. In one trial among men with non-gonococcal urethritis, more partners were treated with provider referral than with simple patient referral (MD 0.5, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.63). In one study among people with syphilis, contract referral elicited treatment of more partners than provider referral (MD 2.2, 95% CI 1.95 to 2.45), but the number of partners receiving treatment was the same in both groups. Where measured, there was no statistical evidence of differences in the incidence of adverse effects between PN strategies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence assessed in this review does not identify a single optimal strategy for PN for any particular STI. When combining trials of STI causing urethritis or cervicitis, expedited partner therapy was more successful than simple patient referral for preventing re-infection of the index patient but was not superior to enhanced patient referral. Expedited partner therapy interventions should include all components that were part of the trial intervention package. There was insufficient evidence to determine the most effective components of an enhanced patient referral strategy. There are too few trials to allow consistent conclusions about the relative effects of provider, contract or other patient referral methods for different STIs. More high-quality RCTs of PN strategies for HIV and syphilis, using biological outcomes, are needed.

Simple Estimation of Incident HIV Infection Rates in Notification Cohorts Based on Window Periods of Algorithms for Evaluation of Line-Immunoassay Result Patterns

Background Tests for recent infections (TRIs) are important for HIV surveillance. We have shown that a patient's antibody pattern in a confirmatory line immunoassay (Inno-Lia) also yields information on time since infection. We have published algorithms which, with a certain sensitivity and specificity, distinguish between incident (< = 12 months) and older infection. In order to use these algorithms like other TRIs, i.e., based on their windows, we now determined their window periods. Methods We classified Inno-Lia results of 527 treatment-naïve patients with HIV-1 infection < = 12 months according to incidence by 25 algorithms. The time after which all infections were ruled older, i.e. the algorithm's window, was determined by linear regression of the proportion ruled incident in dependence of time since infection. Window-based incident infection rates (IIR) were determined utilizing the relationship ‘Prevalence = Incidence x Duration’ in four annual cohorts of HIV-1 notifications. Results were compared to performance-based IIR also derived from Inno-Lia results, but utilizing the relationship ‘incident = true incident + false incident’ and also to the IIR derived from the BED incidence assay. Results Window periods varied between 45.8 and 130.1 days and correlated well with the algorithms' diagnostic sensitivity (R2 = 0.962; P<0.0001). Among the 25 algorithms, the mean window-based IIR among the 748 notifications of 2005/06 was 0.457 compared to 0.453 obtained for performance-based IIR with a model not correcting for selection bias. Evaluation of BED results using a window of 153 days yielded an IIR of 0.669. Window-based IIR and performance-based IIR increased by 22.4% and respectively 30.6% in 2008, while 2009 and 2010 showed a return to baseline for both methods. Conclusions IIR estimations by window- and performance-based evaluations of Inno-Lia algorithm results were similar and can be used together to assess IIR changes between annual HIV notification cohorts.

Implementation of a mandatory donor RHD screening in Switzerland

Starting in 2013, blood donors must be tested at least using: (1) one monoclonal anti-D and one anti-CDE (alternatively full RhCcEe phenotyping), and (2) all RhD negative donors must be tested for RHD exons 5 and 10 plus one further exonic, or intronic RHD specificity, according to the guidelines of the Blood Transfusion Service of the Swiss Red Cross (BTS SRC). In 2012 an adequate stock of RHD screened donors was built. Of all 25,370 RhD negative Swiss donors tested in 2012, 20,015 tested at BTS Berne and 5355 at BTS Zürich, showed 120 (0.47%) RHD positivity. Thirty-seven (0.15%) had to be redefined as RhD positive. Routine molecular RHD screening is reliable, rapid and cost-effective and provides safer RBC units in Switzerland.

Mandatory communication skills training for oncologists: enforcement does not substantially impact satisfaction.

PURPOSE Even though there is evidence that both patients and oncology clinicians are affected by the quality of communication and that communication skills can be effectively trained, so-called Communication Skills Trainings (CSTs) remain heterogeneously implemented. METHODS A systematic evaluation of the level of satisfaction of oncologists with the Swiss CST before (2000-2005) and after (2006-2012) it became mandatory. RESULTS Levels of satisfaction with the CST were high, and satisfaction of physicians participating on a voluntary or mandatory basis did not significantly differ for the majority of the items. CONCLUSIONS The evaluation of physicians' satisfaction over the years and after introduction of mandatory training supports recommendations for generalized implementation of CST and mandatory training for medical oncologists.

Improved hand hygiene compliance after eliminating mandatory glove use from contact precautions-Is less more?

BACKGROUND Guidelines recommend that health care personnel (HCP) wear gloves for all interactions with patients on contact precautions. We aimed to assess hand hygiene (HH) compliance during contact precautions before and after eliminating mandatory glove use. METHODS We assessed HH compliance of HCP in the care of patients on contact precautions in 50 series before (2009) and 6 months after (2012) eliminating mandatory glove use and compared these results with the hospital-wide HH compliance. RESULTS We assessed 426 HH indications before and 492 indications after the policy change. Compared with 2009, we observed a significantly higher HH compliance in patients on contact precautions in 2012 (52%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 47-57) vs 85%; 95% CI, 82-88; P < .001). During the same period, hospital-wide HH compliance also increased from 63% (95% CI, 61-65) to 81% (95% CI 80-83) (P < .001). However, the relative improvement (RI) of HH compliance during contact precautions was significantly higher than the hospital-wide relative improvement (RI, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.49-1.81 vs 1.29; 95% CI, 1.25-1.34), with a relative improvement ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 1.15-1.41). CONCLUSION Eliminating mandatory glove use in the care of patients on contact precautions increased HH compliance in our institution, particularly before invasive procedures and before patient contacts. Further studies on the effect on pathogen transmission are needed before revisiting the current official guidelines on the topic.