STD Surveillance Network (SSuN) Conference Call

Analysis of SSuN Data

SSuN Call #20; May 28, 2009

Participants

SSuN Sites

Alabama: Jane Schwebke, Elizabeth Turnipseed, Shuying Yu

Baltimore: Emily Erbelding, Katherine Harrison

Chicago: Will Wong, Irina Tabidze,Anna Hotton, and Britt Skaathun

Colorado: Christie Mettenbrink and Kees Rietmeijer

Connecticut: Raul Pino

Los Angeles: Sarah Guerry

California DH: Rain Mocello

Louisiana: Lisa Longfellow andMohammad Rahman

NYC: Preeti Pathela and Ellen Klinger

Philadelphia:Lenore Asbel, and Greta Anchuetz

San Francisco: Kyle Bernstein and Julia Marcus

Virginia: Jennifer Bissette, Elisabeth Honorat, River Pugsley, and Jeff Stover

Washington:Mark Stenger and Roxanne Kerani

CDC

Division of STD Prevention (DSTDP)

  • Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch (ESB): Debbie Dowell, Nicholas Gaffga, Bob Kirkcaldy, Lori Newman, and Shalini Parekh.
  • Statistics & Data Management Branch (SDMB): Darlene Davis, Jim Braxton, Rob Nelson
  • Health Services Research Evaluation Branch (HSREB): Guoyu Tao

Agenda:

1. Admin update: June 1 deadline for continuation applications (Lori)

2. Summary of SSuN feedback on treponemal screening (Debbie)

3. SSuN Cycle 1 data finalization (Lori)

4. SSuN Cycle 2 STD clinic data testing update (Darlene)

5. Trich resistance monitoring update (Bob)

6. Alabama site visit (Lori)

7. Update on Interrupted Time Series Analysis of SSuN Cycle 1 GC data (Debbie)

8. Update on Access to Care Analysis of SSuN Cycle 1 GC data (Lori)

9. Misc updates (anyone)

Misc Updates

  1. Misc (Lori)
  2. Admin update: June 1, 2009 is the deadline for continuation applications.
  3. For Part A, submit budget for full amount ($150,000) although we don’t know yet whether this full amount will be funded.
  4. For Part B, submit budget for full amount ($75,000)although this funding is not yet definite.
  1. Summary of SSuN feedback on treponemal screening (Debbie)
  2. Most SSuN sites felt it would be worthwhile to evaluate this further.
  3. A proposal was submittedto CDC DSTDP for additional funding for a subset of SSuN sites to evaluate treponemal screening in their areas.
  4. Comment: Netherlands has already had treponemal screening for some time—may be literature on this there or from other European countries which can inform evaluation (Kees).
  5. Question: Is there a need to share data to enhance the proposal?
  6. Answer: We will hold off until we learn more about possibility of funding.
  7. SSuN Cycle 1 data finalization (Lori)
  8. SSuN Cycle 1 includes data through December 2008. Darlene will check with 2 remaining sites to finalize data.
  9. SSuN Cycle 2 STD clinic data testing update (Darlene)
  10. Darlene has conducted a few pilot test runs and practice edit checks with some sites; has been going well.
  11. If there are any other sites thathave clinic or pilot data they’d like to send to Darlene, let her know. Also let her know if you have questions or need help.
  12. Question: Does the data have to be SAS?
  13. Answer:Yes. Rob and Darlene can work with you to help if needed.
  14. The SDN transfer mechanism is almost ready; Darlene, Rob, and Jim will test (Rob).
  15. For initial testing, prioritize the STD clinic activities over the county surveillance. For sites with the capacity to do both clinic and county simultaneously, go ahead.
  16. Trich resistance monitoring update (Bob Kirkcaldy)
  17. Collection started with San Francisco on April 6th; currently three sites are sending specimens: S.F., Seattle, and Philadelphia.
  18. CDC has received 19 specimens; allarrived alive and viable. Three did not survive during culturing (most likely the result of contamination and bacterial overgrowth).
  19. Eight of the 16 remaining specimens have been tested for resistance (no evidence of resistance).
  20. Alabama site visit (Lori)
  21. Darlene Davis, Jim Braxton, Bob Kirkcaldy, and Lori Newman visited the Alabama SSuN site on May 14, 2009.
  22. Shuying demonstrated the data extraction process.For the county surveillance they are thinking of using Virginia’s Access database. Good news: AL had not had access to GC line-listed morbidity, but now can accessit.
  23. Jane Shwebkegave a tour of the trich lab where AL will conductblinded resistance testing of trich samplesto compare with results from CDC.
  24. Alabama: it was very helpfulto have this in-person interaction during the site visit. (Jane)
  25. The next site visit will be to New Orleans. Generally includes visiting the STD clinic and reviewing data extraction issues. June 11th works for those on the call; will check with Dr. Taylor in New Orleans also.
  26. Update on Interrupted Time Series Analysis (ITSA) of SSuN Cycle 1 GC data (Debbie)
  27. Reference: see attachments on email sent before call.
  28. Those not already participating in the fluoroquinolone treatment analysis are invited to join. This is NOT a required activity under the SSuN grant. Data from some sites(e.g. CA, WA, NYC) can’t be included given fluoroquinolones were already recommended against prior to the 2007 intervention we’re studying. If your site were to participate, we’d need gonorrhea case report data (not SSuN interview data) including treatment date, treatment name, and provider type. We’d expect to include at least 1 co-author from each participating site, and that person would be involved in the analysis and manuscript preparation.
  29. Are there any sites who would be interested in participating?
  30. Louisiana: Do you just want the county participating in SSuN, or the whole state? (Lisa)
  31. Answer: Only need the area for which you will collect data for SSuN.Louisiana: We would be interested in participating.
  32. Connecticut: Can you send more information on what you need? This definitely sounds interesting. (Raul)
  33. Answer: Yes.
  34. Philadelphia: We changed recommendations on fluoroquinolones about a year and a half before CDC did, so we can not participate.
  35. Baltimore: Our treatment info is not complete, so it may not be useful for us to participate. Women get active follow-up with calling, but for men it’s presumed they got treated, so there’s no follow-up. Women’s data may be sufficiently complete. (Emily)
  36. Answer: We can talk individually about whether that would work or not.
  37. Washington: Might want to discuss methods for a potential analysis we could do here, even though we’re not eligible for this study. We started to see a real reduction in use of cephalosporins after the loss of cefixime, and this corresponded to increases in GC morbidity. (Mark)
  38. Answer: would be happy to talk more about ITSA methods for this.
  39. Debbie will send an email to find out about interest and feasibility at each site.
  40. Update on Access to Care Analysis of SSuN Cycle 1 GC data (Lori)
  41. Lori’s study, and Bob’s analysis of GC/HIV co-infection among MSM, accepted as posters at ISSTDR.
  42. Misc updates (anyone)
  43. Who is going to ISSTDR?
  44. KeesRietmeijer, EmilyErbelding, Kyle Bernstein, Sarah Guerry,Roxanne Kerani, Lori Newman, Bob Kirkcaldy, and Hillard Weinstock plan to go.
  45. Question: Should we budget money for a SSuN collaborators meeting every year?
  46. Answer: Yes, please budget travel funds for that meeting.
  47. There is a mistake on the data elements for the clinic on the core sheet: for the SEXOR3 variable, there is no option for patients who have not have had sex with anyone in the last three months. An additional response option of 4=none was added.
  48. June 25thwill be our next SSuN call.

1