Presumptive specific clinical diagnosis of genital ulcer disease (GUD) in a primary health care setting in Nairobi

Abstract

Of 22,274 patients 12 years of age or older attending a primary health care clinic in Nairobi, 1076 (4.8%) complained of symptoms suggesting a sexually transmitted disease (STD). Of these, 518 females and 462 males underwent complete clinical evaluation, and 78% had objective microbiologic or clinical evidence of STD, including 168 (17.1%) with genital ulcer disease (GUD). Presumptive specific clinical diagnoses on initial physical examination in cases of GUD were chancroid (131 patients), syphilis (25), genital herpes (15) and lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) (1). Clinical diagnoses correlated only weakly with microbiological and serological diagnoses. Haemophilus ducreyi was isolated from 51 (41%) of the 125 with a clinical diagnosis of chancroid, and 4 (22%) of 18 with a diagnosis of syphilis, herpes, or LGV (P =0.13). The rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test was reactive in 6 (24%) of 25 with a clinical diagnosis of syphilis, 18 (12.3%) of 146 with a diagnosis of chancroid or herpes, and 37 (4.7%) of 786 without a genital ulcer (P <0.001, GUD vs no GUD). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for presumptive clinical diagnosis of chancroid, relative to H. ducreyi isolation, were 93%, 16%, and 41%; and for diagnosis of syphilis, relative to reactive RPR, were 25%, 88% and 25%. Specific treatment based on presumptive specific clinical diagnosis frequently was inadequate for syphilis among patients with GUD and reactive RPR test. Syndromic treatment of GUD with antimicrobial combinations active against both chancroid and syphilis would be preferable to treatment with single drugs based on presumptive specific clinical diagnoses for this population.