Tests for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which can provide results rapidly to guide therapeutic decision-making, offer patient care advantages over laboratory-based tests that require several days to provide results. We compared results from the Cepheid GeneXpert CT/NG (Xpert) assay to results from two currently approved nucleic acid amplification assays in 1,722 female and 1,387 male volunteers. Results for chlamydia in females demonstrated sensitivities for endocervical, vaginal, and urine samples of 97.4%, 98.7%, and 97.6%, respectively, and for urine samples from males, a sensitivity of 97.5%, with all specificity estimates being >99.4%. Results for gonorrhea in females demonstrated sensitivities for endocervical, vaginal, and urine samples of 100.0%, 100.0%, and 95.6%, respectively, and for urine samples from males, a sensitivity of 98.0%, with all estimates of specificity being >99.8%. These results indicate that this short-turnaround-time test can be used to accurately test patients and to possibly do so at the site of care, thus potentially improving chlamydia and gonorrhea control efforts. Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the agents of the two most prevalent bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), accounting for Ͼ1.6 million reported infections in the United States in 2010 (1). The CDC estimates that STIs cost the health care system $1.5 billion annually. Since these infections, especially chlamydia, are most often asymptomatic, the CDC recommends yearly screening for chlamydia in all sexually active women aged 16 to 25 years. Further, since coinfections are common, most diagnostic test platforms assay for both organisms. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are now recommended by the CDC (2) as the tests of choice; however, current NAATs are classified as being of high or moderate complexity and might take 1 to 2 days for results to become available. New assays and new platforms that provide results at the time of patient visits are urgently needed, since many patients do not return for their results when laboratory-based tests that require several days for their results are performed (3, 4).The Cepheid GeneXpert CT/NG (Xpert) assay is a rapid (Ͻ2 h to results) NAAT assay that can be performed in on-site laboratories. The assay detects the DNA of C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae from endocervical, vaginal, and urine specimens of females, as well as from urine specimens of males, from both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. The Xpert test is performed using a modular cartridge-based platform for testing each specimen by nucleic acid amplification, and it can process from 1 to 96 specimens in Ͻ2 h with easy-to-use cartridges that minimize processing steps and contamination. This study compares the clinical performance (as measured by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV] and negative predictive value [NPV]) of the Xpert assay to the patient infection status (PIS)...

No abstract

SYNOPSISObjectives. The goals of this project were to assess the feasibility of conducting rapid human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing in outreach and community settings to increase knowledge of HIV serostatus among groups disproportionately affected by HIV and to identify effective nonclinical venues for recruiting people in the targeted populations.Methods. Community-based organizations (CBOs) in seven U.S. cities conducted rapid HIV testing in outreach and community settings, including public parks, homeless shelters, and bars. People with reactive preliminary positive test results received confirmatory testing, and people confirmed to be HIVpositive were referred to health-care and prevention services.Results. A total of 23,900 people received rapid HIV testing. Of the 267 people (1.1%) with newly diagnosed HIV infection, 75% received their confirmatory test results and 64% were referred to care. Seventy-six percent were from racial/ethnic minority groups, and 58% identified themselves as men who have sex with men, 72% of whom reported having multiple sex partners in the past year. Venues with the highest proportion of new HIV diagnoses were bathhouses, social service organizations, and needle-exchange programs. The acceptance rate for testing was 60% among sites collecting this information.Conclusions. Findings from this demonstration project indicate that offering rapid HIV testing in outreach and community settings is a feasible approach for reaching members of minority groups and people at high risk for HIV infection. The project identified venues that would be important to target and offered lessons that could be used by other CBOs to design and implement similar programs in the future.

The 2006 Centers for Disease Control recommendations for routine HIV screening in all health care settings could include dental clinics an important testing venue. However, little is known about patients' attitudes regarding the routine use of rapid oral HIV screening at an urban free dental clinic. This pilot study seeks to evaluate the patient perspective on rapid HIV screening in this setting. In June 2007, patients at a free dental clinic in Kansas City, Missouri, were provided an attitude assessment survey prior to their dental visit. This dental clinic serves a diverse patient population consisting of approximately 37% white, 47% black, 6% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 1% Native American uninsured patients. Results were analyzed for acceptance of testing and potential barriers. Of the 150 respondents, 73% reported they would be willing to take a free rapid HIV screening test during their dental visit. Overall, 91% of Hispanics, 79% of Caucasians, and 73% of African American patients reported they would be willing to be screened. Patients with a history of multiple prior screening tests for HIV were more likely to agree to oral rapid HIV screening in the dental clinic. The majority (62%) reported that it did not matter who provided them with the screening result, although some (37%) preferred their dentist above any other provider. Low self-perception of risk (37%) and having already received screening elsewhere (24%) were the main reasons for not accepting a free, rapid HIV screening. Overall, dental clinic patients widely accepted the offer of rapid oral HIV screening. Rapid HIV screening in the dental clinic setting is a viable option to increase the number of individuals who know their HIV status.

No abstract