Cargando…
423. Self-Reported Screening for Rectal Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Men Who Have Sex with Men
BACKGROUND: Rectal gonorrhea and Chlamydia are common and predict HIV acquisition among men who have sex with men (MSM); however, screening for rectal sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is not routine. METHODS: In 2017, we recruited sexually-active MSM in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area t...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6809503/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.496 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Rectal gonorrhea and Chlamydia are common and predict HIV acquisition among men who have sex with men (MSM); however, screening for rectal sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is not routine. METHODS: In 2017, we recruited sexually-active MSM in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area through venue-based sampling. Our outcome of interest was self-reported rectal STI screening in the prior 12 months. Stratified by HIV status, we assessed the prevalence and demographic, healthcare, clinical, and behavioral predictors of screening. RESULTS: Of 448 participants, 168 (37.5%) reported rectal STI screening. One hundred twenty-seven (35.8%) of 355 HIV-negative men, 41 (58.6%) of 70 HIV-positive men, and none of 23 men who did not know their HIV status reported screening. Among HIV-negative men, having a healthcare provider who offered HIV testing (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]=2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43, 3.04), a syphilis diagnosis (aPR=1.32; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.69), use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (aPR=1.57; 95% CI 1.21, 2.04), and condomless anal sex with casual partners in the prior 12 months (aPR=1.74; 95% CI: 1.36, 2.22) independently predicted screening for rectal STI in multivariable analysis. HIV-positive men who reported having a provider who always or often initiates conversations about sex were significantly more likely to report screening compared with men who did not have such a provider (aPR=1.48; 95% CI: 1.06, 2.06). CONCLUSION: Rectal STI screening is not universal in a venue-based sample of sexually-active MSM. Implementing innovative, acceptable, and accessible screening practices and improving provider comfort with talking about sex are paramount to increasing rectal STI screening. [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. |
---|