Sign Up
You are not currently logged in. Please log in to CEUfast to enable the course progress and auto resume features.

View Full Course Library

STD Characterized by Genital Ulcers

This Course Has Expired

Sorry, but this course is no longer active. We are keeping the course material here for research puposes. View our full course library
Author:    Julia Tortorice (RN, MBA, MSN, NEA-BC, CPHQ)

Management of Patients Who Have Genital Ulcers

In the United States, most young, sexually active patients who have genital ulcers have genital herpes, syphilis, or chancroid. The relative frequency of each differs by geographic area and patient population; however, in most areas of the United States, genital herpes is the most prevalent of these diseases. More than one of these diseases could be present in a patient who has genital ulcers. Each disease has been associated with an increased risk for HIV infection.

A diagnosis based only on the patient's medical history and physical examination often is inaccurate. Therefore, evaluation of all patients who have genital ulcers should include a serologic test for syphilis and diagnostic evaluation for herpes. Although, ideally, all of these tests should be conducted for each patient who has a genital ulcer, use of such tests (other than a serologic test for syphilis) may be based on test availability and clinical or epidemiologic suspicion. Specific tests for the evaluation of genital ulcers include the following:

  • Darkfield examination or direct immunofluorescence test for Treponema pallidum,
  • Culture or antigen test for Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV)
  • Culture for Haemophilus ducreyi.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for these organisms might become available commercially.

HIV testing should be a) performed in the management of patients who have genital ulcers caused by T. pallidum or H. ducreyi and b) considered for those who have ulcers caused by HSV (see sections on Syphilis, Chancroid, and Genital Herpes).

A health-care provider often must treat a patient before test results are available. Even after complete diagnostic evaluation, at least 25% of patients who have genital ulcers have no laboratory-confirmed diagnosis.


Chancroid is endemic in some areas of the United States, and the disease also occurs in discrete outbreaks. Chancroid is a cofactor for HIV transmission, and high rates of HIV infection among patients who have chancroid have been reported in the United States and other countries. An estimated 10% of patients who have chancroid could be coinfected with T. pallidum or HSV.

A definitive diagnosis of chancroid requires identification of H. ducreyi on special culture media that are not widely available from commercial sources; even using these media, sensitivity is less than or equal to 80%. A probable diagnosis, for both clinical and surveillance purposes, may be made if the following criteria are met: a) the patient has one or more painful genital ulcers; b) the patient has no evidence of T. pallidum infection by darkfield examination of ulcer exudate or by a serologic test for syphilis performed at least 7 days after onset of ulcers; and c) the clinical presentation, appearance of genital ulcers, and regional lymphadenopathy, if present, are typical for chancroid and a test for HSV is negative. The combination of a painful ulcer and tender inguinal adenopathy, which occurs among one third of patients, suggests a diagnosis of chancroid; when accompanied by suppurative inguinal adenopathy, these signs are almost pathognomonic.


Successful treatment for chancroid cures the infection, resolves the clinical symptoms, and prevents transmission to others. In extensive cases, scarring can result despite successful therapy.


Patients should be reexamined 3-7 days after initiation of therapy. If treatment is successful, ulcers improve symptomatically within 3 days and objectively within 7 days after therapy. If no clinical improvement is evident, the clinician must consider whether a) the diagnosis is correct, b) the patient is coinfected with another STD, c) the patient is infected with HIV, d) the treatment was not taken as instructed, or e) the H. ducreyi strain causing the infection is resistant to the prescribed antimicrobial. The time required for complete healing depends on the size of the ulcer; large ulcers may require greater than 2 weeks. In addition, healing is slower for some uncircumcised men who have ulcers under the foreskin. Clinical resolution of fluctuant lymphadenopathy is slower than that of ulcers and may require drainage, even during otherwise successful therapy. Although needle aspiration of buboes is a simpler procedure, incision and drainage of buboes may be preferred because of less need for subsequent drainage procedures.

Management of Sex Partners

Sex partners of patients who have chancroid should be examined and treated, regardless of whether symptoms of the disease are present, if they had sexual contact with the patient during the 10 days preceding onset of symptoms in the patient.

Genital Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV) Infection

Genital herpes is a recurrent, incurable viral disease. Two serotypes of HSV have been identified: HSV-1 and HSV-2. Most cases of recurrent genital herpes are caused by HSV-2. On the basis of serologic studies, genital HSV-2 infection has been diagnosed in at least 45 million persons in the United States.

Most HSV-2-infected persons have not received a diagnosis of genital herpes. Such persons have mild or unrecognized infections that shed virus intermittently in the genital tract. Some cases of first-episode genital herpes are manifested by severe disease that might require hospitalization. Many cases of genital herpes are transmitted by persons who are unaware that they have the infection or are asymptomatic when transmission occurs.

Systemic antiviral drugs partially control the symptoms and signs of herpes episodes when used to treat first clinical episodes or recurrent episodes or when used as daily suppressive therapy. However, these drugs neither eradicate latent virus nor affect the risk, frequency, or severity of recurrences after the drug is discontinued. Randomized trials indicate that three antiviral medications provide clinical benefit for genital herpes: acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir.

First Clinical Episode of Genital Herpes

Management of patients with first clinical episode of genital herpes includes antiviral therapy and counseling regarding the natural history of genital herpes, sexual and perinatal transmission, and methods to reduce such transmission. Five percent to 30% of first-episode cases of genital herpes are caused by HSV-1, but clinical recurrences are much less frequent for HSV-1 than HSV-2 genital infection. Therefore, identification of the type of the infecting strain has prognostic importance and may be useful for counseling purposes.

Counseling is an important aspect of managing patients who have genital herpes. Although initial counseling can be provided at the first visit, many patients benefit from learning about the chronic aspects of the disease after the acute illness subsides. Counseling of these patients should include the following:

  • Patients who have genital herpes should be told about the natural history of the disease, with emphasis on the potential for recurrent episodes, asymptomatic viral shedding, and sexual transmission.
  • Patients should be advised to abstain from sexual activity when lesions or prodromal symptoms are present and encouraged to inform their sex partners that they have genital herpes. The use of condoms during all sexual exposures with new or uninfected sex partners should be encouraged.
  • Sexual transmission of HSV can occur during asymptomatic periods. Asymptomatic viral shedding occurs more frequently in patients who have genital HSV-2 infection than HSV-1 infection and in patients who have had genital herpes for less than 12 months. Such patients should be counseled to prevent spread of the infection.
  • The risk for neonatal infection should be explained to all patients, including men. Childbearing-aged women who have genital herpes should be advised to inform health-care providers who care for them during pregnancy about the HSV infection.
  • Patients having a first episode of genital herpes should be advised that a) episodic antiviral therapy during recurrent episodes might shorten the duration of lesions and b) suppressive antiviral therapy can ameliorate or prevent recurrent outbreaks.

Recurrent Episodes of HSV Disease

Most patients with first-episode genital HSV-2 infection will have recurrent episodes of genital lesions. Episodic or suppressive antiviral therapy might shorten the duration of lesions or ameliorate recurrences. Because many patients benefit from antiviral therapy, options for treatment should be discussed with all patients.


When treatment is started during the prodrome or within 1 day after onset of lesions, many patients who have recurrent disease benefit from episodic therapy. If episodic treatment of recurrences is chosen, the patient should be provided with antiviral therapy, or a prescription for the medication, so that treatment can be initiated at the first sign of prodrome or genital lesions.


Daily suppressive therapy reduces the frequency of genital herpes recurrences by greater than or equal to 75% among patients who have frequent recurrences (i.e., six or more recurrences per year). Safety and efficacy have been documented among patients receiving daily therapy with acyclovir for as long as 6 years, and with valacyclovir and famciclovir for 1 year. Suppressive therapy has not been associated with emergence of clinically significant acyclovir resistance among immunocompetent patients. After 1 year of continuous suppressive therapy, discontinuation of therapy should be discussed with the patient to assess the patient's psychological adjustment to genital herpes and rate of recurrent episodes, as the frequency of recurrences decreases over time in many patients. Insufficient experience with famciclovir and valacyclovir prevents recommendation of these drugs for greater than 1 year.


Suppressive treatment with acyclovir reduces but does not eliminate asymptomatic viral shedding. Therefore, the extent to which suppressive therapy may prevent HSV transmission is unknown.


IV therapy should be provided for patients who have severe disease or complications necessitating hospitalization, such as disseminated infection, pneumonitis, hepatitis, or complications of the central nervous system (e.g., meningitis or encephalitis).

Management of Sex Partners

The sex partners of patients who have genital herpes are likely to benefit from evaluation and counseling. Symptomatic sex partners should be evaluated and treated in the same manner as patients who have genital lesions. However, most persons who have genital HSV infection do not have a history of typical genital lesions. These persons and their future sex partners may benefit from evaluation and counseling. Thus, even asymptomatic sex partners of patients who have newly diagnosed genital herpes should be questioned concerning histories of typical and atypical genital lesions, and they should be encouraged to examine themselves for lesions in the future and seek medical attention promptly if lesions appear.


Most of the available HSV antibody tests do not accurately discriminate between HSV-1 and HSV-2 antibodies, and their use is not currently recommended. Sensitive and type-specific serum antibody assays may become commercially available and contribute to future intervention strategies.

Perinatal Infection

Most mothers of infants who acquire neonatal herpes lack histories of clinically evident genital herpes. The risk for transmission to the neonate from an infected mother is high among women who acquire genital herpes near the time of delivery (30%-50%) and is low among women who have a history of recurrent herpes at term and women who acquire genital HSV during the first half of pregnancy (3%). Therefore, prevention of neonatal herpes should emphasize prevention of acquisition of genital HSV infection during late pregnancy. Susceptible women whose partners have oral or genital HSV infection, or those whose sex partners' infection status is unknown, should be counseled to avoid unprotected genital and oral sexual contact during late pregnancy. The results of viral cultures during pregnancy do not predict viral shedding at the time of delivery, and such cultures are not indicated routinely.


At the onset of labor, all women should be examined and carefully questioned regarding whether they have symptoms of genital herpes. Infants of women who do not have symptoms or signs of genital herpes infection or its prodrome may be delivered vaginally. Abdominal delivery does not completely eliminate the risk for HSV infection in the neonate.

Granuloma Inguinale (Donovanosis)

Granuloma inguinale, a rare disease in the United States, is caused by the intracellular Gram-negative bacterium Calymmatobacterium granulomatis. The disease is endemic in certain tropical and developing areas, including India, Papua New Guinea, central Australia, and southern Africa. The disease presents clinically as painless, progressive, ulcerative lesions without regional lymphadenopathy. The lesions are highly vascular (i.e., a beefy red appearance) and bleed easily on contact. The causative organism cannot be cultured on standard microbiologic media, and diagnosis requires visualization of dark-staining Donovan bodies on tissue crush preparation or biopsy. A secondary bacterial infection might develop in the lesions, or the lesions might be coinfected with another sexually transmitted pathogen.


Treatment appears to halt progressive destruction of tissue, although prolonged duration of therapy often is required to enable granulation and re-epithelialization of the ulcers. Relapse can occur 6-18 months later despite effective initial therapy.

Management of Sex Partners

Sex partners of patients who have granuloma inguinale should be examined and treated if they a) had sexual contact with the patient during the 60 days preceding the onset of symptoms in the patient and b) have clinical signs and symptoms of the disease.

Lymphogranuloma Venereum

Lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV), a rare disease in the United States, is caused by the invasive serovars L1, L2, or L3 of C. trachomatis. The most frequent clinical manifestation of LGV among heterosexual men is tender inguinal and/or femoral lymphadenopathy that is usually unilateral. Women and homosexually active men might have proctocolitis or inflammatory involvement of perirectal or perianal lymphatic tissues that can result in fistulas and strictures. When most patients seek medical care, they no longer have the self-limited genital ulcer that sometimes occurs at the inoculation site. The diagnosis usually is made serologically and by exclusion of other causes of inguinal lymphadenopathy or genital ulcers.


Treatment cures infection and prevents ongoing tissue damage, although tissue reaction can result in scarring. Buboes may require aspiration through intact skin or incision and drainage to prevent the formation of inguinal/femoral ulcerations. Doxycycline is the preferred treatment.

Management of Sex Partners

Sex partners of patients who have LGV should be examined, tested for urethral or cervical chlamydial infection, and treated if they had sexual contact with the patient during the 30 days preceding onset of symptoms in the patient.


Syphilis is a systemic disease caused by T. pallidum. Patients who have syphilis may seek treatment for signs or symptoms of primary infection (i.e., ulcer or chancre at the infection site), secondary infection (i.e., manifestations that include rash, mucocutaneous lesions, and adenopathy), or tertiary infection (i.e., cardiac, neurologic, ophthalmic, auditory, or gummatous lesions). Infections also may be detected by serologic testing during the latent stage. Latent syphilis acquired within the preceding year is referred to as early latent syphilis; all other cases of latent syphilis are either late latent syphilis or syphilis of unknown duration.

Diagnostic Considerations and Use of Serologic Tests

Darkfield examinations and direct fluorescent antibody tests of lesion exudate or tissue are the definitive methods for diagnosing early syphilis. A presumptive diagnosis is possible with the use of two types of serologic tests for syphilis: a) nontreponemal (e.g., Venereal Disease Research Laboratory {VDRL} and RPR) and b) treponemal (e.g., fluorescent treponemal antibody absorbed {FTA-ABS} and microhemagglutination assay for antibody to T. pallidum {MHA-TP}.


No single test can be used to diagnose all cases of neurosyphilis. The diagnosis of neurosyphilis can be made based on various combinations of reactive serologic test results, abnormalities of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cell count or protein, or a reactive VDRL-CSF with or without clinical manifestations.



Parenteral penicillin G is the preferred drug for treatment of all stages of syphilis. The preparation(s) used (i.e., benzathine, aqueous procaine, or aqueous crystalline), the dosage, and the length of treatment depend on the stage and clinical manifestations of disease.

The efficacy of penicillin for the treatment of syphilis was well established through clinical experience before the value of randomized controlled clinical trials was recognized. Therefore, almost all the recommendations for the treatment of syphilis are based on expert opinion reinforced by case series, clinical trials, and 50 years of clinical experience.

Parenteral penicillin G is the only therapy with documented efficacy for neurosyphilis or for syphilis during pregnancy. Patients who report a penicillin allergy, including pregnant women with syphilis in any stage and patients with neurosyphilis, should be desensitized and treated with penicillin.

Management of Sex Partners

Sexual transmission of T. pallidum occurs only when mucocutaneous syphilitic lesions are present; such manifestations are uncommon after the first year of infection. However, persons exposed sexually to a patient who has syphilis in any stage should be evaluated clinically and serologically according to the following recommendations:

  • Persons who were exposed within the 90 days preceding the diagnosis of primary, secondary, or early latent syphilis in a sex partner might be infected even if seronegative; therefore, such persons should be treated presumptively.
  • Persons who were exposed greater than 90 days before the diagnosis of primary, secondary, or early latent syphilis in a sex partner should be treated presumptively if serologic test results are not available immediately and the opportunity for follow-up is uncertain.
  • For purposes of partner notification and presumptive treatment of exposed sex partners, patients with syphilis of unknown duration who have high nontreponemal serologic test titers (i.e., greater than or equal to 1:32) may be considered as having early syphilis. However, serologic titers should not be used to differentiate early from late latent syphilis for the purpose of determining treatment (see section regarding treatment of latent syphilis).
  • Long-term sex partners of patients who have late syphilis should be evaluated clinically and serologically for syphilis and treated on the basis of the findings of the evaluation.

The time periods before treatment used for identifying at-risk sex partners are a) 3 months plus duration of symptoms for primary syphilis, b) 6 months plus duration of symptoms for secondary syphilis, and c) 1 year for early latent syphilis.

Primary and Secondary Syphilis

Parenteral penicillin G has been used effectively for four decades to achieve a local cure (i.e., healing of lesions and prevention of sexual transmission) and to prevent late sequelae.

All patients who have syphilis should be tested for HIV infection. In geographic areas in which the prevalence of HIV is high, patients who have primary syphilis should be retested for HIV after 3 months if the first HIV test result was negative. This recommendation will become particularly important if it can be demonstrated that intensive antiviral therapy administered soon after HIV seroconversion is beneficial.

Patients who have syphilis and who also have symptoms or signs suggesting neurologic disease (e.g., meningitis) or ophthalmic disease (e.g., uveitis) should be evaluated fully for neurosyphilis and syphilitic eye disease; this evaluation should include CSF analysis and ocular slit-lamp examination. Such patients should be treated appropriately according to the results of this evaluation.

Invasion of CSF by T. pallidum accompanied by CSF abnormalities is common among adults who have primary or secondary syphilis. However, neurosyphilis develops in only a few patients after treatment with the regimens described in this report. Therefore, unless clinical signs or symptoms of neurologic or ophthalmic involvement are present, lumbar puncture is not recommended for routine evaluation of patients who have primary or secondary syphilis.

Latent Syphilis

Latent syphilis is defined as those periods after infection with T. pallidum when patients are seroreactive, but demonstrate no other evidence of disease. Patients who have latent syphilis and who acquired syphilis within the preceding year are classified as having early latent syphilis. Patients can be demonstrated as having early latent syphilis if, within the year preceding the evaluation, they had a) a documented seroconversion, b) unequivocal symptoms of primary or secondary syphilis, or c) a sex partner who had primary, secondary, or early latent syphilis. Almost all other patients have latent syphilis of unknown duration and should be managed as if they had late latent syphilis.

Treatment of latent syphilis is intended to prevent occurrence or progression of late complications. Although clinical experience supports the effectiveness of penicillin in achieving these goals, limited evidence is available for guidance in choosing specific regimens. There is minimal evidence to support the use of nonpenicillin regimens.

Other Management Considerations

All patients who have latent syphilis should be evaluated clinically for evidence of tertiary disease (e.g., aortitis, neurosyphilis, gumma, and iritis). Patients who have syphilis and who demonstrate any of the following criteria should have a prompt CSF examination:

  • Neurologic or ophthalmic signs or symptoms;
  • Evidence of active tertiary syphilis (e.g., aortitis, gumma, and iritis);
  • Treatment failure; and
  • HIV infection with late latent syphilis or syphilis of unknown duration.

If dictated by circumstances and patient preferences, a CSF examination may be performed for patients who do not meet these criteria. If a CSF examination is performed and the results indicate abnormalities consistent with neurosyphilis, the patient should be treated for neurosyphilis (see Neurosyphilis).

Tertiary Syphilis

Tertiary syphilis refers to gumma and cardiovascular syphilis, but not to neurosyphilis.

Patients who have symptomatic late syphilis should have a CSF examination before therapy is initiated. Some experts treat all patients who have cardiovascular syphilis with a neurosyphilis regimen. The complete management of patients who have cardiovascular or gummatous syphilis is beyond the scope of these guidelines. These patients should be managed in consultation with an expert.


Central nervous system disease can occur during any stage of syphilis. A patient who has clinical evidence of neurologic involvement with syphilis (e.g., ophthalmic or auditory symptoms, cranial nerve palsies, and symptoms or signs of meningitis) should have a CSF examination.

Syphilitic uveitis or other ocular manifestations frequently are associated with neurosyphilis; patients with these symptoms should be treated according to the recommendations for neurosyphilis. A CSF examination should be performed for all such patients to identify those with abnormalities who should have follow-up CSF examinations to assess treatment response.

Other considerations in the management of patients who have neurosyphilis are as follows:

  • All patients who have syphilis should be tested for HIV.
  • Many experts recommend treating patients who have evidence of auditory disease caused by syphilis in the same manner as for neurosyphilis, regardless of the findings on CSF examination. Although systemic steroids are used frequently as adjunctive therapy for otologic syphilis, such drugs have not been proven beneficial.

Syphilis in HIV-Infected Persons

In comparison with HIV-negative patients, HIV-infected patients who have early syphilis may be at increased risk for neurologic complications and may have higher rates of treatment failure with currently recommended regimens. The magnitude of these risks, although not defined precisely, is probably minimal. No treatment regimens for syphilis are demonstrably more effective in preventing neurosyphilis in HIV-infected patients than the syphilis regimens recommended for HIV-negative patients. Careful follow-up after therapy is essential.

Syphilis During Pregnancy

All women should be screened serologically for syphilis during the early stages of pregnancy. In populations in which utilization of prenatal care is not optimal, RPR-card test screening and treatment (i.e., if the RPR-card test is reactive) should be performed at the time a pregnancy is diagnosed. For communities and populations in which the prevalence of syphilis is high or for patients at high risk, serologic testing should be performed twice during the third trimester, at 28 weeks of gestation and at delivery. (Some states mandate screening at delivery for all women.) Any woman who delivers a stillborn infant after 20 weeks of gestation should be tested for syphilis. No infant should leave the hospital without the maternal serologic status having been determined at least once during pregnancy.

Women treated for syphilis during the second half of pregnancy are at risk for premature labor and/or fetal distress. These women should be advised to seek obstetric attention after treatment if they notice any contractions or decrease in fetal movements. Stillbirth is a rare complication of treatment, but concern for this complication should not delay necessary treatment.


Congenital Syphilis

Effective prevention and detection of congenital syphilis depends on the identification of syphilis in pregnant women and, therefore, on the routine serologic screening of pregnant women at the time of the first prenatal visit. Serologic testing and a sexual history also should be obtained at 28 weeks of gestation and at delivery in communities and populations in which the risk for congenital syphilis is high. Moreover, as part of the management of pregnant women who have syphilis, information concerning treatment of sex partners should be obtained in order to assess possible maternal reinfection. All pregnant women who have syphilis should be tested for HIV infection.

Routine screening of newborn sera or umbilical cord blood is not recommended. Serologic testing of the mother's serum is preferred to testing infant serum, because the serologic tests performed on infant serum can be nonreactive if the mother's serologic test result is of low titer or if the mother was infected late in pregnancy. No infant should leave the hospital without the maternal serologic status having been documented at least once during pregnancy.

Evaluation and Treatment of Infants During the First Month of Life

All infants born to seroreactive mothers should be evaluated with a quantitative nontreponemal serologic test (RPR or VDRL) performed on infant serum (i.e., umbilical cord blood might be contaminated with maternal blood and might yield a false-positive result). A treponemal test (i.e., MHA-TP or FTA-ABS) of a newborn's serum is not necessary.

All infants born to women who have reactive serologic tests for syphilis should be examined thoroughly for evidence of congenital syphilis (e.g., nonimmune hydrops, jaundice, hepatosplenomegaly, rhinitis, skin rash, and/or pseudoparalysis of an extremity). Pathologic examination of the placenta or umbilical cord using specific fluorescent antitreponemal antibody staining is suggested. Darkfield microscopic examination or direct fluorescent antibody staining of suspicious lesions or body fluids (e.g., nasal discharge) also should be performed.

Further evaluation of the infant is dependent on a) whether any abnormalities are present on physical examination, b) maternal treatment history, c) stage of infection at the time of treatment, and d) comparison of maternal (at delivery) and infant nontreponemal titers utilizing the same test and preferably the same laboratory.



Infants should be treated for presumed congenital syphilis if they were born to mothers who met any of the following criteria:

  • Had untreated syphilis at delivery; *
  • Had serologic evidence of relapse or reinfection after treatment (i.e., a fourfold or greater increase in nontreponemal antibody titer);
  • Was treated with erythromycin or other nonpenicillin regimen for syphilis during pregnancy; **
  • Was treated for syphilis less than or equal to 1 month before delivery;
  • Did not have a well-documented history of treatment for syphilis;
  • Was treated for early syphilis during pregnancy with the appropriate penicillin regimen, but nontreponemal antibody titers did not decrease at least fourfold; or
  • Was treated appropriately before pregnancy but had insufficient serologic follow-up to ensure an adequate treatment response and lack of current infection (i.e., an appropriate response includes a} at least a fourfold decrease in nontreponemal antibody titers for patients treated for early syphilis and b} stable or declining nontreponemal titers of less than or equal to 1:4 for other patients).

Regardless of a maternal history of infection with T. pallidum or treatment for syphilis, the evaluation should include the following tests if the infant has either a) an abnormal physical examination that is consistent with congenital syphilis, b) a serum quantitative nontreponemal serologic titer that is fourfold greater than the mother's titer, or c) a positive darkfield or fluorescent antibody test of body fluid(s).

  • CSF analysis for VDRL, cell count, and protein;
  • Complete blood count (CBC) and differential CBC and platelet count;
  • Other tests as clinically indicated (e.g., long-bone radiographs, chest radiograph, liver-function tests, cranial ultrasound, ophthalmologic examination, and auditory brainstem response).


Edited By Julia Tortorice, RN, MBA, CPHQ

Excerpts reprinted from the CDC publication, 1998 Guidelines for Treatment of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, January 23, 1998 / 47(RR-1); 1-118,


  1. CDC. Hepatitis B virus: a comprehensive strategy for eliminating transmission in the United States through universal childhood vaccination -- recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP). MMWR 1991;40(No. RR-13).
  2. CDC. Prevention of hepatitis A through active or passive immunization: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 1996;45(No. RR-15).
  3. CDC. Sexually transmitted diseases clinical practice guidelines, 1991. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, CDC, 1991.
  4. Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F, et al. Contraceptive technology. 16th ed. New York: Irvington Publishers, 1994.
  5. CDC. Technical guidance on HIV counseling. MMWR 1993;42(No. RR-2):11-7.
  6. American Academy of Pediatrics/American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for perinatal care. 3rd ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics/American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1992.
  7. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1996.
  8. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Gonorrhea and chlamydial infections. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, March 1994. (ACOG technical bulletin, no. 190).
  9. CDC. Recommendations for the prevention and management of Chlamydia trachomatis infections, 1993. MMWR 1993;42(No. RR-12).
  10. CDC. 1997 USPHS/IDSA guidelines for the prevention of opportunistic infections in persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus. MMWR 1997;46(No. RR-12).
  11. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Evaluation and management of early HIV infection. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1994; AHCPR publication no. 94-0572. (Clinical practice guidelines, no. 7).
  12. CDC. Testing for antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus type 2 in the United States. MMWR 1992;41(No. RR-12).
  13. CDC. Purified protein derivative (PPD)-tuberculin anergy and HIV infection: guidelines for anergy testing and management of anergic persons at risk of tuberculosis. MMWR 1991;40(No. RR-5):27-33.
  14. CDC. The use of preventive therapy for tuberculous infection in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee for Elimination of Tuberculosis. MMWR 1990;39(No. RR-8):9-12.
  15. CDC. Management of persons exposed to multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. MMWR 1992;41(No. RR-11):59-71.
  16. Carpenter CCJ, Fischl MA, Hammer SM, et al. Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in 1997: updated recommendations of the International AIDS Society -- USA Panel. JAMA 1997;277:1962-9.
  17. CDC. Recommendations for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia for adults and adolescents infected with human immunodeficiency virus: U.S. Public Health Service Task Force on Antipneumocystis Prophylaxis for Patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection. MMWR 1992;41(No. RR-4).
  18. CDC. 1995 Revised guidelines for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia for children infected with or perinatally exposed to human immunodeficiency virus. MMWR 1995;44(No. RR-4).
  19. Committee on Infectious Diseases, American Academy of Pediatrics. Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. 22nd ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics, 1991.
  20. CDC. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP): use of vaccines and immune globulins in persons with altered immunocompetence. MMWR 1993;42(No. RR-4).
  21. CDC. U.S. Public Health Service recommendations for human immunodeficiency virus counseling and voluntary testing for pregnant women. MMWR 1995;44(No. RR-7).
  22. CDC. Recommendations of the U.S. Public Health Service Task Force on the Use of Zidovudine to Reduce Perinatal Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus. MMWR 1994;43(No. RR-11).
  23. Henry RE, Wegmann JA, Hartle JE, Christopher GW. Successful oral acyclovir desensitization. Ann Allergy 1993;70:386-8.
  24. Wendel GD Jr, Stark BJ, Jamison RB, Molina RD, Sullivan TJ. Penicillin allergy and desensitization in serious infections during pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1985;312:1229-32.
  25. Saxon A, Beall GN, Rohr AS, Adelman DC. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to beta-lactam antibiotics {Clinical conference}. Ann Intern Med 1987;107:204-15.
  26. Pearlman MD, Yashar C, Ernst S, Solomon W. An incremental dosing protocol for women with severe vaginal trichomoniasis and adverse reactions to metronidazole. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:934-6.
  27. National Cancer Institute Workshop. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. JAMA 1989;262:931-4.
  28. Kurman RJ, Henson DE, Herbst AL, Noller KL, Schiffman MH, National Cancer Institute Workshop. Interim guidelines for management of abnormal cervical cytology. JAMA 1994;271:1866-9.
  29. Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect, American Academy of Pediatrics. Guidelines for the evaluation of sexual abuse of children. Pediatrics 1991;87:254-60. 


 Expert Consultants

Chairman: David Atkins, M.D., M.P.H., Agency for Health Care Policy and Research;

Presenters: Michael H. Augenbraun, M.D., State University of New York Health Science Center at Brooklyn, NY; Karl Beutner, M.D., Ph.D., Solano Dermatology, Vallejo, CA; Gail A. Bolan, M.D., San Francisco Department of Public Health and University of California at San Francisco; Willard Cates, Jr., M.D., M.P.H., Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC; Anne M. Rompalo, M.D., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Pablo J. Sanchez, M.D., Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas; Bradley Stoner, M.D., Ph.D., Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Anna Wald, M.D., M.P.H., University of Washington, Seattle; Cheryl K. Walker, M.D., University of California at Irvine; George D. Wendel, M.D., Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas; Jonathan M. Zenilman, M.D., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Moderators: King K. Holmes, M.D., Ph.D., Center for AIDS and STDs, University of Washington, Seattle; Edward W. Hook, III, M.D., University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine; A. Eugene Washington, M.D., M.Sc., University of California at San Francisco.

Rapporteurs: John M. Douglas, Jr., M.D., Denver Department of Public Health and University of Colorado Health Science Center; Margaret R. Hammerschlag, M.D., State University of New York Health Science Center; David H. Martin, M.D., Louisiana State University Medical Center, New Orleans.

Consultants: Adaora A. Adimora, M.D., M.P.H., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Virginia A. Caine, M.D., Marion County Health Department, Indianapolis; Laura T. Gutman, M.D., Duke University, Durham, NC; H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D., Seattle-King County Department of Public Health and University of Washington, Seattle; Robert B. Jones, M.D., Ph.D., Indiana University, Indianapolis; Franklyn N. Judson, M.D., Denver Department of Health; William M. McCormack, M.D., State University of New York Health Science Center at Brooklyn; Daniel M. Musher, M.D., Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; Newton G. Osborne, M.D., M.P.H., Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC; Robert T. Rolfs, Jr., M.D., Utah Department of Health; Lawrence L. Sanders, Jr., M.D., Southwest Hospital and Medical Center, Atlanta; Jane R. Schwebke, M.D., University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine; Jack D. Sobel, M.D., Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit; David E. Soper, M.D., Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Walter E. Stamm, M.D., University of Washington; Lawrence R. Stanberry, M.D., Ph.D., Children's Hospital, Cincinnati; Felicia H. Stewart, M.D., Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA; Richard L. Sweet, M.D., Magee-Women's Hospital, Pittsburgh.

Other Expert Consultants (did not attend meeting): Susan Blank, M.D., New York City Department of Health; Sharon L. Hillier, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh; Penelope J. Hitchcock, D.V.M., M.S., National Institutes of Health; Paul N. Zenker, M.D., M.P.H., Franklin Primary Health, Mobile, AL.

Liaison Participants: Dennis J. Barbour, J.D., Association of Reproductive Health Professionals; Joan R. Cates, American Social Health Association; JoAnne Doherty, Health Canada, Ontario; Robert G. Harmon, M.D., M.P.H., United Health Care; Kate L. Heilpern, M.D., American College of Emergency Physicians; John J. Henning, Ph.D., American Medical Association; K. King Holmes, M.D., Ph.D., Infectious Diseases Society of America; John N. Krieger, M.D., American Urological Association; Marshall Kubota, M.D., American Academy of Family Practice; Noni E. MacDonald, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics; Gary A. Richwald, M.D., M.P.H., National Coalition of STD Directors; Helen J. Sawyer, R.N., Georgia Department of Human Resources; Stanley X. Shapiro, M.D., Regional Laboratory and Infectious Disease Committee, Kaiser Permanente, Panorama City, CA; Donald Sutherland, M.D., Health Canada; Steve K. Tyring, M.D., Ph.D., American Academy of Dermatology; C. Johannes van Dam, M.D., World Health Organization; Fernando Zacarias, M.D., M.P.H., Pan American Health Organization, World Health Organization.

CDC/Division of STD Prevention (DSTDP)/STD Treatment Guidelines 1997 Project

Coordinators: Kimberly A. Workowski, M.D.; John S. Moran, M.D.; Co-Chair: Michael E. St. Louis, M.D.; Co-Moderator: Katherine M. Stone, M.D.;

Presenters: Consuelo M. Beck-Sague, M.D., National Center for Infectious Diseases (NCID); M. Riduan Joesoef, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H.; Mary L. Kamb, M.D., M.P.H., Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP); Jonathan E. Kaplan, M.D., NCID; H. Trent MacKay, M.D., M.P.H.; Michael M. McNeil, M.D., M.P.H., NCID; Allyn K. Nakashima, M.D., DHAP; George P. Schmid, M.D., M.Sc.;

Consultants: Sevgi O. Aral, Ph.D.; Stuart M. Berman, M.D.; Donald F. Dowda; Brian R. Edlin, M.D., DHAP; Helene D. Gayle, M.D., M.P.H., National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP); Robert S. Janssen, M.D., DHAP; Wanda K. Jones, Dr.P.H., Office of Women's Health; William J. Kassler, M.D., M.P.H.; Nancy C. Lee, M.D., DHAP; Beth Macke, Ph.D.; Frank J. Mahoney, M.D., NCID; Phillip I. Nieberg, M.D., M.P.H., NCHSTP; Herbert B. Peterson, M.D., National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP); Martha F. Rogers, M.D., DHAP; William E. Secor, Ph.D., NCID; Dawn K. Smith, M.D., DHAP; Ronald O. Valdiserri, M.D., M.P.H., NCHSTP; Judith N. Wasserheit, M.D., M.P.H.; Lynne S. Wilcox, M.D., NCCDPHP;

Support Staff: Cynthia Ford, Contractor; Deborah McElroy; Garrett K. Mallory.