Kerani Roxanne P, Chang Alene, Berzkalns Anna, Palacios-Moreno Juan, Ramchandani Meena, Golden Matthew R
Epidemiology, University of Washington.
Public Health-Seattle and King County HIV/STD/Hepatitis C Program, Seattle, WA.
Sex Transm Dis. 2025 Apr 1;52(4):225-232. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000002132. Epub 2024 Dec 24.
Partner services (PS) have been integral to syphilis control in the United States since the early 20th century but have not been evaluated in a controlled study.
We compared PS outcomes among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) diagnosed with syphilis from May 2020 to June 2021 for whom health department staff initiated PS efforts (PS group) and a randomly selected control group for whom no PS efforts were initiated. We interviewed participants about partner outcomes and used χ2 tests and Poisson regression to test for differences in outcomes between groups.
We attempted to contact 350 GBMSM and offered participation to 184 men, of whom 92 (51%) participated, including 41 men in the PS group and 51 controls. The percentage of participants who reported notifying ≥1 sex partner after diagnosis was similar in the PS and control groups (83% vs. 80%, P = 0.80). Mean number of partners notified or tested did not differ between PS and control groups (notified mean [range], 2.5 [0-10] vs. 3.3 [0-20], P = 0.16; tested mean [range]: 1.2 [0-8] vs. 1 [0-10], P = 0.66); multivariate results were similar. Among those contacted for PS, approximately half (48%) reported PS staff helped them with medical care for syphilis, and 31% said that PS staff connected them to preexposure prophylaxis.
This small, controlled evaluation suggests that syphilis PS may have no impact on partner treatment among GBMSM, although most men support the intervention. A randomized trial is needed to definitively define the contemporary effectiveness of syphilis PS among GBMSM.
自20世纪初以来，性伴服务（PS）在美国梅毒控制中一直不可或缺，但尚未在对照研究中进行评估。
我们比较了2020年5月至2021年6月被诊断为梅毒的男同性恋者、双性恋者及其他与男性发生性行为的男性（GBMSM）中性伴服务的结果，其中卫生部门工作人员对其开展了性伴服务工作（性伴服务组），并与一个随机选择的未开展性伴服务工作的对照组进行比较。我们就性伴结果对参与者进行了访谈，并使用卡方检验和泊松回归来检验两组结果的差异。
我们试图联系350名GBMSM，并邀请184名男性参与，其中92名（51%）参与，包括41名性伴服务组男性和51名对照组男性。性伴服务组和对照组中报告在诊断后通知≥1名性伴的参与者百分比相似（83%对80%，P = 0.80）。性伴服务组和对照组之间通知或检测的性伴平均数量没有差异（通知的平均数[范围]，2.5[0 - 10]对3.3[0 - 20]，P = 0.16；检测的平均数[范围]：1.2[0 - 8]对1[0 - 10]，P = 0.66）；多变量结果相似。在那些被联系进行性伴服务的人中，约一半（48%）报告性伴服务工作人员帮助他们接受梅毒医疗护理，31%的人表示性伴服务工作人员为他们联系了暴露前预防。
这项小型对照评估表明，梅毒性伴服务可能对GBMSM中性伴治疗没有影响，尽管大多数男性支持该干预措施。需要进行一项随机试验来明确界定梅毒性伴服务在GBMSM中的当代有效性。
