Ages 20 to 24
Similar trends were observed among 20 to 24 years old men in each area over the same time period (Table 1). Cases among males in this age group increased 12-fold in NYC, 8-fold in Miami-Fort Lauderdale, and 9-fold in Philadelphia. Again, the majority of male cases were MSM. Reported HIV coinfection rates were higher in the 20 to 24 years old age group than among adolescents (Table 1). In NYC in 2008, 17.4% of black and 17.9% of Hispanic males with infectious syphilis were in this age group compared with 5.2% of white males (RR: 3.4, 95% CI: 1.9, 6.0 for blacks; RR: 3.3; 95% CI: 1.8, 6.0 for Hispanics). Similarly, in Miami-Fort Lauderdale black, but not Hispanic, males were more likely to be in this age group (23% of black cases vs. 5.1% of white cases [RR: 4.5; 95% CI: 1.8–11.2] and 8.9% of Hispanics [RR: 3.0; 95% CI: 1.4, 7.0]). In Philadelphia, blacks were more likely to be in this age group compared to whites (22.8% vs. 4.0%), although this difference was not statistically significant.
Age 25 and Greater
In each of these 3 metropolitan areas, there were large increases in infectious syphilis among men 25 or more years of age (Table 1). Although the number of cases was much larger, the proportional increases were not as high as among younger age groups. Again, a majority of cases were identified as MSM and HIV coinfection rates were higher than among other age groups (Table 1). In 2008 in NYC, 93.2% of white males diagnosed with infectious syphilis were in this age group compared with 73.5% of blacks (RR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.27, 1.63) and 76.5% of Hispanics (RR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.31). In Miami-Fort Lauderdale, 92.9% of white males and 89.3% of Hispanics diagnosed with infectious syphilis were in this age group compared with 64.6% of blacks (RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.26, 1.64 for whites; RR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.57 for Hispanics). In Philadelphia, 92.0% of white males were in this age group compared with 66.7% of black males (RR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.16, 1.65). Due to the small number of Hispanic cases in Philadelphia, we did not calculate risk ratios for this group.
Although the number of cases in each age group varied considerably by metropolitan area in 2008, rates, by age group, were remarkably similar for blacks (Table 2). Rates among whites, by age group, were also very similar in NYC and Miami-Fort Lauderdale, while they were considerably lower in Philadelphia. While infectious syphilis rates among black males were higher than among white males in each of the 3 age groups in 2008, the difference was most striking among adolescents and young adults.
Since 2006, adolescent and young adult black men have emerged as a risk group for syphilis in NYC, Philadelphia, and Miami-Fort Lauderdale, with rates that have increased rapidly. Blacks were disproportionately affected in all 3 metropolitan areas. Young Hispanic males were also affected in NYC, but not in Miami-Fort Lauderdale. Although most young men were identified as MSM, the actual percentage of cases among MSM is likely to be higher because some young men (particularly nonwhites) are unwilling to self identify as MSM.10,11
Among the young men with infectious syphilis in this analysis, reported HIV coinfection was high. However, the proportion of men with infectious syphilis who were HIV coinfected was likely underestimated as some men were not tested at the time of syphilis diagnosis and some men who were HIV-infected may not have reported their serostatus. Other men with early syphilis may have had acute HIV infection that would not be detectable with an antibody test,12 and thus they may have believed they were HIV-negative. Black MSM and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic MSM generally acquire HIV infection at a younger age than white MSM and have a higher seroprevalence of HIV.7,8 Although blacks are a minority group in the US population, twice as many black MSM aged 13 to 24 years were diagnosed with HIV-infection from 2000 to 2006 compared with white MSM in the same age group.7 Although there is no evidence to suggest that black MSM have higher risk sexual behaviors,13,14 this may be partly related to the structure of their sexual networks. For example, black MSM are more likely to have significantly older sex partners compared with other MSM, increasing the risk of HIV transmission from older to younger men.15–17 Evidence also suggests that higher rates of STDs among black MSM are facilitating HIV transmission13,18 and that black MSM are often unaware of their HIV serostatus and, therefore, are at greater risk of infecting partners.13,14 Therefore, reaching young black MSM as early as possible with prevention messages is critical. However, this task is particularly difficult because these young men may not realize (or admit) that they are MSM. A sexually transmitted infection may be the only thing that brings these young men in contact to health care; therefore, it is especially important that providers take a nonjudgmental sexual history, which includes ascertaining the sex of sexual partners. This may be the first opportunity for these young men to openly discuss their sexuality with a healthcare provider.
HIV prevention counseling and HIV testing are of critical importance for young MSM diagnosed with syphilis or any other sexually transmitted infections, providing what for many may be their only opportunity for risk reduction counseling.19 Risk reduction counseling for persons previously known to have been HIV-infected should be offered and those with newly diagnosed HIV infection should be linked to care. Those who are HIV-negative need to have follow-up testing to rule out seroconversion, particularly if diagnosed with primary syphilis. Due to the high risk of seroconversion, persons with primary syphilis who test negative for HIV should be retested after 3 months if negative serology is not followed by HIV polymerase chain reaction testing to rule out acute infection.20,21 They also should be counseled to reduce risk behaviors in order to prevent subsequent HIV-infection.22–24
Few risk-reduction interventions have been tailored to young black and Hispanic MSM, although they should be an urgent research priority.22,24 Currently, 2 prevention interventions targeting black MSM are offered in the CDC's Diffusion of Effective Behavioral Interventions.25 Many Voices, Many Men was a randomized controlled intervention for black MSM who demonstrated decreased unprotected anal intercourse with casual partners and increased HIV testing in the intervention arm.26 The second intervention, d-up: Defend Yourself was successfully adapted for black MSM after having been shown to decrease risk behaviors among other MSM groups.27 Neither of these interventions is specifically addressed to youth under 18 years of age.
Even with the existence of evidence-based interventions, only a small fraction of at-risk MSM is being reached with prevention messages28,29 outside of HIV pre- and post-test counseling scenarios.19 In the 2003 to 2005 cycle of the CDC-sponsored National HIV Behavioral Risk Surveillance, only 15% of MSM reported receiving individual level risk reduction interventions while 8% reported receiving group level interventions.29 For Miami-Dade County, the percentage of men receiving such services showed little change from the 2005 to the 2008 cycle—from 13% reporting individual and 6% reporting group interventions in 200529 to 13% and 5% respectively in 2008.19 Unfortunately, if current trends continue the deterioration of sexual health of MSM in the United States28 will continue, with black MSM bearing a disproportionate burden of disease.
This study has the limitations of likely underestimating the HIV seroprevalence and proportion of male cases identified as MSM. Data on heterosexual activities among MSM were not available. Additionally, data on race/ethnicity were missing in some cases. There were also some variations in data collection methods between STD control programs in the 3 jurisdictions; however, these were minor. We studied the NYC, Philadelphia, and Miami-Fort Lauderdale syphilis epidemics as these are the areas where we work. These results therefore may not represent the experience of other East Coast areas. However, while we are not aware of specific studies examining infectious syphilis trends in young MSM by race in other local areas, the findings of increased syphilis among young black MSM are supported by national data.30
The MSM syphilis epidemic is increasingly diverse and involves MSM of different age and racial/ethnic groups with their own subcultures. New, targeted prevention messages for young black and Hispanic MSM are essential. In order to facilitate effective counseling and interventions, syphilis trends among youth in areas with ongoing syphilis epidemics trends should be stratified by race/ethnicity and monitored. Types of hangouts, methods of sex partner selection and recruitment, and comfort level with public health agencies attempting to perform contact investigation is likely to vary among different age groups, racial/ethnic groups, and persons of different sexual orientation. Understanding these differences is critically important to meet the prevention needs of this population.
1. Peterman TA, Heffelfinger JD, Swint EB, et al. The changing epidemic of syphilis. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32:s4–s10.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Primary and secondary syphilis—United States, 2002. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2003; 52:1117–1120.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance for gonorrhea and primary and secondary syphilis among adolescents, United States—1981–1991. MMWR Surveill Summ 1993; 42(SS-3):1–11.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2005 supplement, syphilis surveillance report. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006.
5. Fleming DT, Wasserheit JN. From epidemiological synergy to public health policy and practice: The contribution of other sexually transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sex Transm Infect 1999; 75:3–17.
6. McCabe E, Jaffe LR, Diaz A. Human immunodeficiency virus seropositivity in adolescents with syphilis. Pediatrics 1993; 92:695–698.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in HIV/AIDS diagnoses among men who have sex with men-33 States, 2000–2006. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008; 57:681–686.
9. Peterman TA, Kahn RH, Ciesielski CA, et al. Misclassification of the stages of syphilis: Implications for surveillance. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32:144–149.
10. Fullilove MT, Fullilove RE. Stigma as an obstacle to AIDS action: The case of the African American community. Am Behav Sci 1999; 42:1117–1129.
11. Miller M, Serner M, Wagner M. Sexual diversity among black men who have sex with men in an inner-city community. J Urban Health 2005; 82(suppl 1):i26–i34.
12. Fiebig EW, Wright DJ, Rawal BD, et al. Dynamics of HIV viremia and antibody seroconversion in plasma donors: Implications for diagnosis and staging of primary HIV infection. AIDS 2003; 17:1871–1879.
13. Millett GA, Peterson JL, Wolitski RJ, et al. Greater risk for HIV infection of black men who have sex with men: A critical literature review. Am J Public Health 2006; 96:1007–1019.
14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV prevalence, unrecognized infection, HIV testing among men who have sex with men—five U.S. Cities, June 2004–April 2005. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005; 54:597–601.
15. Berry M, Raymond HF, McFarland W. Same race and older partner selection may explain higher HIV prevalence among black men who have sex with men. AIDS 2007; 21:2349–2350.
16. Bingham TA, Harawa NT, Johnson DF, et al. The effect of partner characteristics on HIV infection among African American men who have sex with men in the Young Men's Survey, Los Angeles, 1999–2000. AIDS Educ Prev 2003; 15:39–52.
17. Hurt CB, Matthews DD, Calabria MS, et al. Sex with older partners is associated with primary HIV infection among men who have sex with men in North Carolina. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2010; 54:185–190.
18. Millett GA, Flores SA, Peterson JL, et al. Explaining disparities in HIV infection among black and White men who have sex with men: A meta-analysis of HIV risk behaviors. AIDS 2007; 21:2083–2091.
20. Pilcher CD, Fiscus SA, Nguyen TQ, et al. Detection of acute infections during HIV testing in North Carolina. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:1873–1883.
21. Zetola NM, Bernstein KT, Wong W, et al. Exploring the relationship between sexually transmitted diseases and HIV acquisition by using different study designs. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2009; 50:546–551.
22. Johnson WD, Diaz RM, Flanders WD, et al. Behavioral interventions to reduce risk for sexual transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008:CD001230.
23. Morgenstern J, Bux DA Jr, Parsons J, et al. Randomized trial to reduce club drug use and HIV risk behaviors among men who have sex with men. J Consult Clin Psychol 2009; 77:645–656.
24. Peterson JL, Jones KT. HIV prevention for black men who have sex with men in the United States. Am J Public Health 2009; 99:976–980.
26. Wilton L, Herbst JH, Coury-Doniger P, et al. Efficacy of an HIV/STI Prevention Intervention for black men who sex with men: Findings from the Many Men, Many Voices (3MV) Project. AIDS Behav 2009; 13:532–544.
27. Jones KT, Gray P, Whiteside O, et al. Evaluation of an HIV prevention intervention adapted for black men who have sex with men. Am J Pub Health 2008; 98:1043–1050.
28. Fenton KA. Prevention with HIV-positive men who have sex with men: Regaining lost ground. Sex Transm Infect 2010; 86:2–3.
29. CDC. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk, prevention, and testing behaviors—United States, National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System: Men who have sex with men, November 2003–April 2005. MMWR Surveill Summ 2006; 55(SS-6):1–16.
© Copyright 2011 American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association
30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2008. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009.