No vaccines and few chemoprophylaxis options exist for the prevention of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) (specifically syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea). These infections have increased in the United States and disproportionately affect gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW). In three large randomized controlled trials, 200 mg of doxycycline taken within 72 hours after sex has been shown to reduce syphilis and chlamydia infections by >70% and gonococcal infections by approximately 50%. This report outlines CDC\'s recommendation for the use of doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (doxy PEP), a novel, ongoing, patient-managed biomedical STI prevention strategy for a selected population. CDC recommends that MSM and TGW who have had a bacterial STI (specifically syphilis, chlamydia, or gonorrhea) diagnosed in the past 12 months should receive counseling that doxy PEP can be used as postexposure prophylaxis to prevent these infections. Following shared decision-making with their provider, CDC recommends that providers offer persons in this group a prescription for doxy PEP to be self-administered within 72 hours after having oral, vaginal, or anal sex. The recommended dose of doxy PEP is 200 mg and should not exceed a maximum dose of 200 mg every 24 hours.Doxy PEP, when offered, should be implemented in the context of a comprehensive sexual health approach, including risk reduction counseling, STI screening and treatment, recommended vaccination and linkage to HIV PrEP, HIV care, or other services as appropriate. Persons who are prescribed doxy PEP should undergo bacterial STI testing at anatomic sites of exposure at baseline and every 3-6 months thereafter. Ongoing need for doxy PEP should be assessed every 3-6 months as well. HIV screening should be performed for HIV-negative MSM and TGW according to current recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Population size, prevalence, and incidence are essential metrics that influence public health programming and policy. However, stakeholders are frequently tasked with setting performance targets, reporting global indicators, and designing policies based on multiple (often incongruous) estimates of these variables, and they often do so in the absence of a formal, transparent framework for reaching a consensus estimate.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe a model to synthesize multiple study estimates while incorporating stakeholder knowledge, introduce an R Shiny app to implement the model, and demonstrate the model and app using real data.
METHODS: In this study, we developed a Bayesian hierarchical model to synthesize multiple study estimates that allow the user to incorporate the quality of each estimate as a confidence score. The model was implemented as a user-friendly R Shiny app aimed at practitioners of population size estimation. The underlying Bayesian model was programmed in Stan for efficient sampling and computation.
RESULTS: The app was demonstrated using biobehavioral survey-based population size estimates (and accompanying confidence scores) of female sex workers and men who have sex with men from 3 survey locations in a country in sub-Saharan Africa. The consensus results incorporating confidence scores are compared with the case where they are absent, and the results with confidence scores are shown to perform better according to an app-supplied metric for unaccounted-for variation.
CONCLUSIONS: The utility of the triangulator model, including the incorporation of confidence scores, as a user-friendly app is demonstrated using a use case example. Our results offer empirical evidence of the model\'s effectiveness in producing an accurate consensus estimate and emphasize the significant impact that the accessible model and app offer for public health. It offers a solution to the long-standing problem of synthesizing multiple estimates, potentially leading to more informed and evidence-based decision-making processes. The Triangulator has broad utility and flexibility to be adapted and used in various other contexts and regions to address similar challenges.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (doxy-PEP) involves consuming 200 mg of doxycycline up to 72 hours after a condomless sex act to reduce the risk of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Recent clinical trials of doxy-PEP have demonstrated significant reductions in syphilis, chlamydia and, to a lesser degree, gonorrhoea among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). There is a high level of interest in doxy-PEP in the GBMSM community and, in response, the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine (ASHM) held a national consensus conference with the aim of creating preliminary guidance for clinicians, community, researchers and policy makers.
CONCLUSIONS: There was broad agreement that doxy-PEP should be considered primarily for the prevention of syphilis in GBMSM who are at risk of this STI, with a secondary benefit of reductions in other bacterial STIs. At the end of the consensus process, there remained some disagreement, as some stakeholders felt strongly that doxy-PEP should be considered only for the prevention of syphilis in GBMSM, and that the risk of increasing antimicrobial resistance outweighed any potential benefit from reductions in other bacterial STIs in the target population. The national roundtable made several other recommendations for clinicians, community, researchers and policy makers, as detailed in this article. ASHM will support the development of detailed clinical guidelines and education materials on doxy-PEP (www.ashm.org.au/doxy-pep).
UNASSIGNED: For GBMSM at high risk of syphilis, and perhaps other bacterial STIs, clinicians may consider prescribing doxy-PEP for a limited period of time, followed by a review of ongoing need. Unlike human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), doxy-PEP may not be suitable as a population-level intervention and should instead be used more selectively.

The International Anal Neoplasia Society (IANS) developed consensus guidelines to inform anal cancer screening use among various high-risk groups. Anal cancer incidence estimates by age among risk groups provided the basis to identify risk thresholds to recommend screening. Guided by risk thresholds, screening initiation at age 35 years was recommended for men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TW) with HIV. For other people with HIV and MSM and TW not with HIV, screening initiation at age 45 years was recommended. For solid organ transplant recipients, screening initiation beginning from 10 years post-transplant was recommended. For persons with a history of vulvar precancer or cancer, screening initiation was recommended starting within 1 year of diagnosis of vulvar precancer or cancer. Persons aged ≥45 years with a history of cervical/vaginal HSIL or cancer, perianal warts, persistent (>1 year) cervical HPV16, or autoimmune conditions could be considered for screening with shared decision-making, provided there is adequate capacity to perform diagnostic procedures (high-resolution anoscopy [HRA]). Anal cytology, high-risk (hr) human papillomavirus (HPV) testing (including genotyping for HPV16), and hrHPV-cytology co-testing are different strategies currently used for anal cancer screening that show acceptable performance. Thresholds for referral for HRA or follow-up screening tests are delineated. These recommendations from IANS provide the basis to inform management of abnormal screening results, considering currently available screening tools. These guidelines provide a pivotal foundation to help generate consensus among providers and inform the introduction and implementation of risk-targeted screening for anal cancer prevention.

UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to develop best practice guidelines for preventing suicide and reducing suicidal thoughts and behaviours in LGBTQA+ young people (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer/questioning, asexual, and those of other diverse sexualities and genders) within clinical and community service settings in Australia.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a Delphi expert consensus study. A systematic literature search and interviews with key informants informed an initial 270-item questionnaire. Two expert panels completed the questionnaire, delivered over two rounds: (1) Australian professionals with expertise in LGBTQA+ mental health/suicide prevention and (2) Australian LGBTQA+ young people aged 14-25 with lived experience of suicidal thoughts and/or behaviours. Items endorsed as \'essential\' or \'important\' by >80% of both expert panels were included in the guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 115 people participated in the Delphi process; n = 52 professionals completed Round 1, and n = 42 completed Round 2; n = 63 LGBTQA+ young people completed Round 1, and n = 50 completed Round 2. A total of 290 items were included in the guidelines and grouped into: (1) general principles for creating an affirming and inclusive environment for LGBTQA+ young people; (2) assessing suicide risk and working with suicidal LGBTQA+ young people; (3) considerations for specific LGBTQA+ populations; and (4) advocating for LGBTQA+ young people.
UNASSIGNED: These guidelines are the first of their kind in Australia. They provide practical support to service providers regardless of prior training in LGBTQ+ identities or mental health, with the aim of reducing suicidal thoughts and behaviours, and preventing suicide, in LGBTQA+ young people.

OBJECTIVE: To identify attitudes towards HIV/STI screening guidelines and explore the acceptability of assessing sexual positioning practices among Black sexual minority men (SMM).
BACKGROUND: Risks for HIV/STIs vary by sexual positioning practices. However, clinicians and Black SMM do not always discuss sexuality with each other. Therefore, HIV/STI screening and testing remain suboptimal.
METHODS: Qualitative study using focus groups.
METHODS: Data were obtained from 12 focus groups and one in-depth interview conducted in Baltimore, MD among HIV-negative Black SMM between October 2019 and May 2020 (N = 39). Groups were stratified into three age categories: 18-24, 25-34 and 35+. Participants were given the \"5 P\'s\" from the CDC\'s 2015 Sexual History Screening Guidelines and asked to discuss attitudes towards existing questions regarding sexual positioning practices. Themes were identified using an electronic pile sorting approach.
RESULTS: Most identified as homosexual/gay/same gender-loving (68%), were employed (69%) and single (66%). Additionally, 34% had ever been diagnosed with an STI, of whom 38% had a history of repeated STI acquisition in their lifetime. Participants across age groups said clinicians should use the words \"top\" and \"bottom\" to demonstrate cultural familiarity and build trust. Some said that screening for sexual positioning was unnecessary and intrusive; others said that questions should be justified. Younger men wanted clinicians to ask questions in ways that make them feel cared for.
CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines should include language for clinicians to use culturally specific language and better ways to prepare Black SMM patients for screening.
UNASSIGNED: Some Black SMM will not discuss sexual positioning practices without clinicians\' demonstration of cultural understanding and respect. Screening should incorporate culturally responsive language, justification and convey care.
UNASSIGNED: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ).
UNASSIGNED: There was no patient or public involvement in the design or drafting of this discursive paper.

暂无摘要。

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are a powerful instrument to ensure evidence-based practice in clinical diagnostics and disease management. As knowledge about the impact of sex and gender on health and disease is emerging, the need for its transfer into clinical practice is becoming more urgent. However, a systematic evaluation of the incorporation of sex-related and gender-related knowledge into CPGs in Europe is currently not available. This systematic review will fill this gap. We will analyse the operationalisation of sex and gender in internal medicine CPGs in Europe and the translation of this information into tailored recommendations. The results will offer a baseline assessment to inform prospective sex-sensitive and gender-sensitive guideline development.
CPGs published by European internal medicine guidelines will be analysed according to a pre-established analysis framework. CPGs will be identified by a two-step approach, that is, through direct contact with the organisations and by a PubMed search, to ensure capture of all relevant guidelines. Prespecified keywords will be employed to identify the representation of sex-related and gender-related content throughout the CPGs. Structured data will be collected through machine-assisted text mining. Identified texts will then be manually reviewed by two independent coders using a specifically developed checklist.
This study does not require approval by an ethics board. It will provide an overview of sex and gender considerations in European CPGs in the field of internal medicine regarding the time frame 2012-2022.

Parents and caregivers\' responses to their child\'s gender identity or expression play a pivotal role in their mental health. Despite increasing visibility of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) children, few scientific resources exist to advise their parents and caregivers.
We used an online Delphi study to generate expert consensus. Expert adult participants (N = 93; 55% cisgender women, 12% cisgender men, 33% gender minority; 83% White race or ethnicity) rated statements describing parenting strategies compiled from a systematic search of community-generated online literature. Participants represented 3 distinct \"panels\" of expertise: parents and caregivers of a TGD child, TGD persons, and/or professionals working with TGD populations. Statements rated as essential or important by 80% to 100% of each panel were endorsed as a guideline. Three rounds of surveys were used with iterative feedback to develop consensus.
Of 813 total statements, only 125 were endorsed by all 3 panels. Key domains of consensus included: supportive strategies for parents (eg, open communication, listening), behaviors to avoid (eg, pressuring a child into a gender transition), strategies for navigating healthcare and school systems, and common responses for parents (eg, confusion). Areas of disagreement, in which professional and TGD panels concurred but the parent panel did not, included whether to allow gender identity experimentation during childhood, the value of providing access to gender diverse media, and how to avoid misgendering a child.
These consensus-based guidelines offer a unique and needed resource for parents and caregivers and clinicians and can be used to promote the mental health and well-being of TGD children.