|
Campaign
to Eliminate Syphilis Transmission
Going, going, . . . but not gone: Can we eliminate
syphilis transmission within the U.S.?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) has launched a campaign to eliminate syphilis transmission
within the United States. Syphilis is an especially destructive
sexually transmitted disease (STD) caused by a spirochete bacterium,
Treponema pallidum. The sequelae of untreated syphilis
may include irreversible neurologic damage, blindness, destruction
of skin and bones, damage to the heart and blood vessels, and
premature death. The genital sores associated with syphilis
make it easier to both acquire and transmit the human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) through sexual contact. Pregnant women who become
infected with syphilis may have spontaneous abortions or stillbirths
or give birth to infants with congenital syphilis. Infants with
congenital syphilis are likely to have permanent damage to one
or more of their body systems.
Syphilis elimination would have many positive
public health implications. The devastating consequences of
untreated syphilis and congenital syphilis could be avoided
and HIV transmission might be reduced. Elimination is theoretically
possible because syphilis is easy to detect and cure. A single
dose of penicillin is an effective treatment against primary
or secondary syphilis, and syphilis bacteria are not known to
have developed antibiotic resistance. It is now an excellent
time to start an elimination campaign because the rates in the
U.S. are currently the lowest ever recorded. There are areas
within the U.S., however, where syphilis remains a serious problem.
In 1998, 6,993 cases of primary and secondary syphilis were
reported in the U.S., and more than 50% of these cases were
reported from 28 U.S. counties (<1% of all U.S. counties),
the majority of which are in the South.
Five strategies have been proposed by the CDC
for syphilis elimination. These include enhancing surveillance
for syphilis; strengthening community involvement and partnerships,
particularly in communities with high syphilis rates; developing
a rapid outbreak response plan to combat syphilis; expanding
clinical and laboratory services, particularly in areas with
populations at high risk for syphilis; and, enhancing health
promotion interventions, including confidential partner notification
services. The primary focus of the syphilis elimination campaign
will be on areas that either have high rates of syphilis morbidity
(high morbidity areas) or have the potential for syphilis re-emergence
(potential re-emergence areas). High morbidity areas are defined
as areas with ongoing syphilis transmission at high rates (e.g.,
the 28 U.S. counties with >50% of the primary and secondary
cases). Potential re-emergence areas are defined as areas that
currently experience little or no syphilis transmission but
are at significant risk for syphilis reintroduction because:
1) they have a history of high syphilis rates at some time in
the 1990s; 2) they are a port city or border area, or are located
on routes that are routinely traveled by migrant workers; 3)
they are located along known drug trafficking corridors; or,
4) they include large populations of people known historically
to have been disproportionately affected by syphilis. Areas
that are not high morbidity areas or potential re-emergence
areas are termed low morbidity areas. Low morbidity
areas are not being targeted specifically in the elimination
campaign, but are being encouraged to maintain strong prevention
programs for all STDs, including syphilis.
Utah is considered to be a low morbidity area
for syphilis. Since 1990, an average of eight cases of primary
or secondary syphilis have been reported in Utah each year.
Nearly all of the cases reported since 1990 have been found,
upon investigation, to have had sexual contact with a person
or persons who live or travel outside of Utah. While there are
not many cases of syphilis diagnosed in Utah, health care providers
should still consider syphilis as a potential diagnosis in patients
who are at risk of contracting STDs. Syphilis should definitely
be considered if the patient has had sexual contact with persons
who live or travel outside of Utah. Also, because untreated
syphilis in a pregnant woman can infect and even kill her developing
baby, it is very important that all pregnant women have
a blood test for syphilis.
People who test positive for syphilis or are diagnosed
with other sexually transmitted diseases (i.e., chlamydia, gonorrhea,
or pelvic inflammatory disease) should be reported to the Utah
Department of Health or to their local health department as
soon as possible. Trained disease investigation specialists
will then conduct confidential case investigations to identify
the sexual contacts of these people and refer them for medical
care. These investigations are absolutely confidential and the
identity of the infected person, even if that person is a minor,
will not be revealed to anyone besides those individuals conducting
the case investigation. Investigations are crucial to the success
of any STD prevention and control program, because identifying
(and referring for medical care) the sexual contacts of an infected
person is vital in stopping disease transmission.
The elimination of syphilis in the United States
will require a strong commitment from public health agencies.
The CDC believes that the campaign will cost $37 million each
year for the next five years. The elimination of syphilis, however,
could ultimately save approximately $1 billion a year now spent
on costs related to syphilis and its sequelae. Cooperation from
private health care providers in identifying and reporting new
cases will be essential to the success of syphilis elimination.
Other countries, including Canada, England, Sweden and Denmark,
have already eliminated syphilis, so this can be done. Dr. Jeffrey
Koplan, Director of the CDC, stated in an interview conducted
October 6, 1999, For a modern, industrialized, wealthy
nation to tolerate the continued transmission of this disease
should be unacceptable. We dont have to have it here.
(New York Times, U.S. Says Stars Are Aligned
to Vanquish an Old Foe: Syphilis, October 8, 1999.)
Return
Quarterly
Report of Diseases of Low Frequency Year-to-Date January 1 -
December 31, 1999 (including a comparison for same time
period 1995 -1998)

Return
Test
Your Knowledge of Hepatitis B & C (Adapted
from the Oklahoma Epidemiology Bulletin Vol. 99 no. 2)
Based on the
following laboratory results, what disease(s) would be diagnosed?
1. Anti-HAV positive (+), anti-HAV IgM negative
(-), HBsAg (+), anti-HBs (-), anti-HBc IgM (+), anti-HBc (+),
HbeAg (+), anti-HCV (+).
| |
acute hepatitis A, B, and C
|
| |
acute hepatitis B and acute hepatitis
A
|
| |
chronic hepatitis B and acute hepatitis
|
| |
acute hepatitis B and possibly hepatitis
C, either acute or chronic
|
2. Anti-HAV (+), anti-HBc (+) and anti-HCV (+)
with supplemental RIBA (+).
| |
acute hepatitis B, acute hepatitis A and
acute hepatitis C
|
| |
a past or current infection with hepatitis
A, B and C
|
| |
chronic hepatitis B and chronic hepatitis
C
|
| |
none of the above
|
3. HBsAg (+), anti-HBs (-), anti-HBc IgM (-),
anti-HBc IgG (+), HBeAg (+), anti-Hbe (-), anti-HAV (+).
| |
acute hepatitis B only
|
| |
chronic hepatitis B and acute hepatitis
A
|
| |
chronic hepatitis B and possibly hepatitis
A
|
| |
hepatitis A only
|
4. HBsAg (-), anti-HBs (+), anti-HBc IgM (-),
anti-HBc IgG (+), HBeAg (-), anti-Hbe (+), anti-HAV (+), anti-HAV
IgM (-), anti-HCV (-).
| |
chronic hepatitis B, acute hepatitis A
|
| |
chronic hepatitis B only
|
| |
acute hepatitis A only
|
| |
nothing to report
|
Hepatitis B & C Reporting Issues
Acute hepatitis B
Acute hepatitis B should be reported
any time the anti-HBc IgM is positive. Acute hepatitis
B should also be reported when the HBsAg is positive,
the anti-HBc IgM has not been performed, and the patient has
classic symptoms of acute viral hepatitis. Please include onset
date, symptoms, and all available hepatitis panel and serum
aminotransferase levels.
Chronic hepatitis B
Chronic hepatitis B should be reported
when the HBsAg is positive, anti-HBc is positive, and anti-HBc
IgM is negative. Please include all available hepatitis panel
results and serum aminotransferase levels. Such cases need not
be reported if the case has previously been reported.
Acute hepatitis C
Acute HCV should be reported when
the patient has 1) classic symptoms of acute viral hepatitis
2) a negative anti-HAV IgM, negative anti-HBc IgM (if done)
or negative HBsAg, and a positive anti-HCV, verified by a reactive
supplemental test such as a Recombinant Immunoblot Assay (RIBA)
or PCR amplification and 3) serum aminotransferase levels >2.5
times the upper limit of normal.
Chronic hepatitis C
Chronic HCV or HCV, Status Unknown
should be reported when an asymptomatic patient has 1) a positive
anti-HCV with a positive supplemental HCV test (e.g., RIBA or
HCV RNA), and 2) a negative anti-HAV IgM, a negative HBsAg and
a negative anti-HBcIgM (if done). Liver function tests may be
within normal range or elevated. Please include hepatitis C
virus genotyping and serotyping when available.
Hepatitis unspecified
Hepatitis Unspecified should be reported
when 1) the patient has classic symptoms of acute viral hepatitis
2) the anti-HAV, anti-HBcIgM (if done) or HBsAg, and the anti-HCV
(if done) are all negative, and 3) the serum aminotransferase
levels are >2.5 times the upper limit of normal. Be aware
that patients infected with HCV may test negative on first test
but the HCV antibody is present, in almost all patients by four
weeks after onset of acute illness.
Who should report?
Laboratories should report all positive anti-HAV
IgM, HBsAg, anti-HBc IgM, and HCV RIBA test results. Physicians
should report diagnosed cases of acute and chronic hepatitis
B and C with supportive clinical and laboratory data.
Answers:
1. (d) This set of lab results indicates an acute
case of hepatitis B. A positive HBsAg shows the client to be
contagious; the positive anti-HBc IgM designates acute infection
as opposed to chronic; the positive HBeAg indicates active viral
replication, thus the patient is highly contagious. Liver function
tests (LFT), ALT and AST are generally normal in the early acute
state of HBV infection and become elevated as the infection
progresses. Anti-HCV can be considered a screening test for
hepatitis C. In this case, additional testing (RIBA, HCV RNA
[by PCR]) is required to confirm a diagnosis of hepatitis C,
either acute or chronic. A positive anti-HAV with a negative
anti-HAV IgM would indicate a past infection with hepatitis
A and the patient is immune.
2. (b) The hepatitis C test results indicate this
patient has or has had hepatitis C. Additional testing is required
to determine disease status. If the patient is chronically infected,
increases in the serum aminotransferases (ALT and AST) can range
from 0 to 20 times (usually less than five times) the upper
limit of normal. Testing for HCV RNA is helpful in determining
chronic infection in patients with normal ALT levels. The hepatitis
A (anti-HAV+) and hepatitis B (anti-HBc+) test results do not
differentiate between acute and chronic infection. Additional
testing (anti-HAV IgM and anti-HBc IgM) is required to determine
hepatitis A and hepatitis B status.
3. (c) The anti-HBc IgM negative test with a positive
HBsAg indicates chronic hepatitis B infection. The HBeAg may
or may not be positive during chronic infection and the ALT
and AST may or may not be elevated. A positive anti-HAV does
not differentiate between acute or past infection of hepatitis
A. An anti-HAV IgM is required to assess acute infection.
4. (d) This patient has a history of hepatitis
B but is now immune and not contagious. A negative anti-HAV
IgM with a positive anti-HAV indicates past infection with hepatitis
A.
Return
Utah
Department of Health, Bureau of Epidemiology Monthly Morbidity
Summary - December 1999 - Provisional Data

The Epidemiology Newsletter
is published monthly by the Utah Department of Health, Division
of Epidemiology and Laboratory Services, Bureau of Epidemiology,
to disseminate epidemiologic information to the health care
professional and the general public.
Send comments to: The Bureau of Epidemiology, Box 142104,
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2104, or call (801) 538-6191
Approval 8000008: Appropriation 3705
Rod Betit, Executive Director, Utah Department of Health
Charles Brokopp, Dr.P.H., Division of Epidemiology and Laboratory
Services
Craig R Nichols, MPA, Editor, State Epidemiologist, Director
Bureau of Epidemiology
Gerrie Dowdle, MSPH, Managing Editor
Connie Dean, Production Assistant
Return
|