生殖道沙眼衣原体感染者两种性伴干预方式比较的Meta分析  

Comparison of two intervention methods in the sexual partner of patients infected with urogenital chlamydia:A meta-analysis

作　　者：宋微 姜婷婷 吴敏智[1] 陈祥生[2] SONG Wei;JIANG Tingting;WU Minzhi;CHEN Xiangsheng(Department of Dermatology and Venereology,The Fifth People's Hospital of Suzhou,Suzhou 215131,Jiangsu,China;Institute of Dermatology,Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences&Peking Union Medical College,and National Center for STD Control,Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Nanjing 210042,Jiangsu,China)

机构地区：[1]苏州市第五人民医院皮肤性病科,江苏苏州215131 [2]中国医学科学院北京协和医学院皮肤病研究所、中国疾病预防控制中心性病控制中心,南京210042

出　　处：《中国艾滋病性病》2024年第1期110-114,共5页Chinese Journal of Aids & STD

基　　金：苏州市临床医学专家团队引进项目(SZYJTD201811);苏州市科技发展计划(医疗卫生科技创新-应用基础研究)项目(SKJYD2021235)。

摘　　要：目的系统比较生殖道沙眼衣原体感染者性伴通知(PN)与性伴快速治疗(EPT)策略的接受性与有效性。方法检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、GeenMedical、中国知网(CNKI)、维普(VIP)数据库、万方数据库,查找从2013-2023年间发表的生殖道沙眼衣原体感染者(指示患者)PN与EPT的文献,采用Cochrane干预措施系统评价手册进行质量评价,RevMan v.5.4软件进行统计分析。结果共纳入12篇文献,调查人数4456例。通过数据分析指示患者对PN和EPT的接受差异无统计学意义(RR=1.13,95%CI:0.88~1.45,P=0.33),但在男性指示患者中和在EPT合法的地区EPT更容易被接受。指示患者的性伴更愿意接受EPT(P<0.00001,RR=2.36,95%CI:1.67~3.34),但两种策略实施后对指示患者衣原体再感染率的影响差异无统计学意义(RR=0.81,95%CI:0.63~1.06,P=0.12)。结论在性伴干预策略中,相比于PN,EPT在男性指示患者和在EPT合法的地区的指示患者以及性伴中更容易被接受,但是目前并没有发现对指示患者的衣原体再感染有显著影响。Objective To systematically compare the acceptability and effectiveness of partner notification(PN)and expedited partner therapy(EPT)among patients with urogenital chlamydia infection.Methods Literatures on PN and EPT among patients infected with urogenital chlamydia were retrieved from PubMed,Cochrane Library,GeenMedical,China National Knowledge Internet(CNKI),VIP Chinese Journal Service Platform,and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform from 2013 to 2023.The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was applied to evaluate literature quality,and RevMan v.5.4 software was used to perform meta-analyses.Results A total of 12 literatures were included and 4456 cases were reviewed.There was no significant difference in index patients'acceptance rate between PN and EPT(RR=1.13,95%CI:0.88-1.45,P=0.33),whereas EPT was more easily accepted in male index patients or in areas where EPT was legal.Partners of index patients were more likely to accept EPT(RR=2.36,95%CI:1.67-3.34,P<0.00001).There was no statistically significant difference in the re-infection rate between PN and EPT(RR=0.81,95%CI:0.63-1.06,P=0.12).Conclusions Regarding sexual partner intervention strategies,compared to PN,EPT is more likely to be accepted in male index patients and index patients in areas where EPT is legal.However,no significant effect is found on the rate of re-infection with Chlamydia trachomatis among index patients.

关 键 词：性伴通知 性伴快速治疗 接受率 衣原体再感染 

分 类 号：R374.1[医药卫生—病原生物学]