5C 4 Comparison of the Case-Finding Effectiveness of Partner Notification Services for Primary and Secondary Versus Early Latent Syphilis Cases in North Carolina

Thursday, June 12, 2014: 8:30 AM
Grand Ballroom A/B/C/D1
Victoria Mobley, MD MPH1, Michael Hilton, BS2, Todd vanhoy, BA3, Evelyn Foust, CPM, MPH1 and Peter Leone, MD4, 1North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, North Carolina Division of Public Health, Raleigh, NC, 2North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, North Carolina Divsion of Public Health, Raleigh, NC, 3North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, North Carolina Division of Public Health, Winston-Salem, NC, 4Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC

Background: Partner notification (PN) services for early syphilis cases- primary, secondary (P&S) and early latent (EL)-are the cornerstone of public health control efforts. Due to decreasing funding, the CDC has encouraged states to limit PN services to P&S index cases only. We compared the yield of newly detected syphilis among contacts of EL and P&S syphilis index cases.

Methods: Recent sexual contacts (as defined by CDC) identified through PN services performed by Disease Intervention Specialists (DIS) for P&S and EL index cases were assessed from 2010- 2012. Using the STD-MIS database, we compared the number of new early syphilis infections among sexual contacts of P&S and EL cases and calculated the “contact brought-to-treatment” index (#contacts newly diagnosed with early syphilis per #index cases interviewed).

Results:  DIS performed PN services for 98.0% of assigned index cases, 1083 P&S and 961 EL. EL interviews elicited 2500 sexual contacts; 1917 were contactable and 673 (35.1%) were infected.   Of infected EL contacts, primary, secondary and EL infections were diagnosed in 57 (8.5%), 206 (30.6%) and 369 (54.8%) individuals, respectively. P&S interviews elicited 2516 sexual contacts; 1871 were contactable and 557 (29.8%) were infected. Of infected P&S contacts, primary, secondary and EL infections were diagnosed in 66 (11.8%), 193 (34.6%) and 265 (47.6%) individuals, respectively. The “contact brought-to-treatment” index was 0.66 (632 contacts with early syphilis per 961 index cases) for EL and 0.48 (524 contacts with early syphilis per 1083 index cases) for P&S cases.

Conclusions: In North Carolina, PN services for EL and P&S cases identified similar numbers of early syphilis contacts. Without routine PN services for EL index cases, half of P&S syphilis cases among contacts may have remained undetected. Our findings suggest that effective syphilis prevention and control efforts in North Carolina require the continuation of PN services for EL cases.