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 SELECTION CRITERIA Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing two or more PN strategies.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.

Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain?

BACKGROUND: Follow-up of abnormal outpatient laboratory test results is a major patient safety concern. Electronic medical records can potentially address this concern through automated notification. We examined whether automated notifications of abnormal laboratory results (alerts) in an integrated electronic medical record resulted in timely follow-up actions. METHODS: We studied 4 alerts: hemoglobin A1c > or =15%, positive hepatitis C antibody, prostate-specific antigen > or =15 ng/mL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone > or =15 mIU/L. An alert tracking system determined whether the alert was acknowledged (ie, provider clicked on and opened the message) within 2 weeks of transmission; acknowledged alerts were considered read. Within 30 days of result transmission, record review and provider contact determined follow-up actions (eg, patient contact, treatment). Multivariable logistic regression models analyzed predictors for lack of timely follow-up. RESULTS: Between May and December 2008, 78,158 tests (hemoglobin A1c, hepatitis C antibody, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and prostate-specific antigen) were performed, of which 1163 (1.48%) were transmitted as alerts; 10.2% of these (119/1163) were unacknowledged. Timely follow-up was lacking in 79 (6.8%), and was statistically not different for acknowledged and unacknowledged alerts (6.4% vs 10.1%; P =.13). Of 1163 alerts, 202 (17.4%) arose from unnecessarily ordered (redundant) tests. Alerts for a new versus known diagnosis were more likely to lack timely follow-up (odds ratio 7.35; 95% confidence interval, 4.16-12.97), whereas alerts related to redundant tests were less likely to lack timely follow-up (odds ratio 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Safety concerns related to timely patient follow-up remain despite automated notification of non-life-threatening abnormal laboratory results in the outpatient setting.

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.

Gender differences in tuberculosis notification in Pakistan

Worldwide the male:female ratio of new smear-positive TB cases is estimated to be roughly 2:1. However in Pakistan this is not the case. Rates of notified TB cases are 20–30% higher in young females compared with males and female rates remain high regardless of increasing age. This is in stark contrast to neighboring India which is characterized by a huge excess of male TB cases. It is currently unknown why rates of notified TB are so high in females in Pakistan, but it is clear this epidemiology is a public health issue of great importance that impacts transmission dynamics and disease control initiatives.^

E-Flow: A communication system for user notification in dynamic evacuation scenarios

Most of the current evacuation plans are based on static signaling, fixed monitoring infrastructure, and limited user notification and feedback mechanisms. These facts lead to lower situation awareness, in the case event of an emergency, such as blocked emergency exits, while delaying the reaction time of individuals. In this context, we introduce the E-Flow communication system, which improves the user awareness by integrating personal, mobile and fixed devices with the existing monitoring infrastructure. Our system broadens the notification and monitoring alternatives, in real time, among, safety staff, end-users and evacuation related devices, such as sensors and actuators.

Notification to Loammi Baldwin, 1795 June 25

One-page brief handwritten letter requesting Baldwin attend an examination and committee meeting.

Notification of a committee meeting, 1835 October 13

One-page printed notification of a meeting on October 20, 1835 of the Committee appointed by the Board of Overseers for the purpose of visiting the University, signed by President Josiah Quincy.

Notification of an Overseers meeting, 1835 July 6

One-page printed notification of a meeting of the Overseers of Harvard College on July 16, 1835 signed by Secretary John Pierce.

Notification from William Cutler to the selectmen of Cambridge, Massachusetts, that Dr. Philip Brukowitz and wife were inhabiting his father's house in Cambridge, 1758 April 25

Single page notification addressed to the selectmen of Cambridge, Massachusetts, dated 25 April 1758, in which William Cutler writes that he took into his father’s Cambridge house as tenants Dr. George Philip Brukowitz and his wife, from Woburn, Massachusetts. After the Boston smallpox epidemic of 1721, the town of Cambridge enacted a requirement in 1723 that no resident would receive or admit any non-resident family into their homes for the space of a month without informing the town selectmen. The penalty for failing to do so was twenty shillings.