The findings and conclusions in these presentations have not been formally disseminated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 8:50 AM
362

Field-Delivered Patient and Partner Therapy as a Creative Chlamydia

Melina Boudov1, Tracie McClain2, Sarah L. Guerry1, Marisol Mejia2, Gloria Escoto2, and David De La Riva2. (1) Sexually Transmitted Disease Program, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, 2615 S. Grand Ave, Room 500, Los Angeles, CA, USA, (2) Sexually Transmitted Disease Program, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, 2615 S. Grand Ave, Room 500, Los Angeles, CA, USA


Background:
In order to improve upon consistently low treatment rates of
chlamydia-infected women discharged untreated from jail, a
field-delivered therapy (FDT) protocol was developed.


Objective:
To evaluate the feasibility of FDT as a chlamydia (CT) treatment option
for recently incarcerated females and their partners.

Method:
A case-worker trained in FDT found cases in the field and offered a
clinic referral for treatment or field therapy. Cases accepting FDT
were offered field therapy or patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT)
for their partners. Case records from January-September 2005 were
reviewed to evaluate the pilot.

Result:
Of the 138 cases assigned to the case worker, 43 (31%) were
successfully treated through FDT. Of the remaining cases, 63 (46%)
could not be located, 8 (6%) refused treatment, 20 (14%) remain open and
4 (3%) were administratively closed. Of the women receiving FDT, 7
(16%) were incarcerated on prostitution charges. Of the 56 sexual
contacts named by FDT recipients, PDPT was accepted for 20 (36%), 5 (9%)
were treated by FDT, 11 (20%) received a clinic referral from the case
worker, and 2 (1%) were incarcerated. For the remaining 19 (34%), cases
chose to refer their partners for treatment. Cases characterized their
relationships with elicited partners as 68% steady, 23% casual, and the
remaining 9% were not characterized. FDT or PDPT was accepted for 53%
of steady and 23% of non-steady partnerships. Treatment could be
verified for 12 (21%) of contacts. No adverse reactions to medication
were noted in the women or their partners.

Conclusion:
FDT allowed for the treatment of almost one third of the CT infected
females assigned to the case worker and FDT/PDPT allowed for treatment
of just under half of all their named sexual contacts.

Implications:
FDT and PDPT are feasible strategies to ensure prompt treatment of a
proportion of hard-to-reach, high risk cases and their sexual contacts.