Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy logoLink to Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
. 2023 May 2;78(7):1561–1568. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkad129

Important considerations regarding the widespread use of doxycycline chemoprophylaxis against sexually transmitted infections

Fabian Yuh Shiong Kong 1,✉, Chris Kenyon 2,3, Magnus Unemo 4,5
PMCID: PMC10577522  PMID: 37129293

Abstract

Rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to rise across the world and interventions are essential to reduce their incidence. Past and recent studies have indicated this may be achieved using doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and this has sparked considerable interest in its use. However, many unanswered questions remain as to its long-term effects and particularly potentially negative impact on human microbiomes and antimicrobial resistance among STIs, other pathogens, and commensals. In this review, we discuss seven areas of concern pertaining to the widespread use of doxycycline PEP.

Introduction

As rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) increase around the world, interventions are urgently needed to reduce their incidence and associated morbidity.1 Successful implementation of preventative interventions such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has resulted in dramatic reductions in the incidence of HIV globally.2 This has led to studies that have assessed if doxycycline, taken prophylactically, pre- and/or post-sexual exposure, can reduce the incidence of bacterial STIs such as syphilis (aetiological agent: Treponema pallidum subspecies pallidum), chlamydia (Chlamydia trachomatis) and gonorrhoea (Neisseria gonorrhoeae).3,4

In 2015, the French IPERGAY trial by Molina et al.3 randomly assigned 232 men or transgender women who have sex with men (MSM or TGW) at high risk of acquiring HIV (condomless anal sex with >2 different partners during past 6 months) using HIV PrEP to take 200 mg of doxycycline (a broad-spectrum tetracycline antibiotic) within 24 h, but no later than 72 h after having sex (doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis; PEP). This resulted in a 70%–73% lower incidence of chlamydia and syphilis infections but had no effect on N. gonorrhoeae. A recent DoxyPEP trial in the USA by Luetkemeyer et al.,4 reported similar reductions in STI incidence (66%) including a 55% lower incidence of gonorrhoea among 501 MSM or TGW who were counselled to take doxycycline after condomless sex with at least one male in the past 2 months and taking HIV PrEP. The difference in effect on gonorrhoea incidence between these two studies may be partly explained by the lower prevalence of gonococcal resistance to doxycycline in the USA (20%–30% resistance; https://www.cdc.gov/std/statistics/gisp-profiles/default.htm)5 compared with France (56% resistance)6 at the time of the trial, and that in DoxyPEP,4 participants were permitted to have more doses than in IPERGAY3 (seven versus three doses a week). Similar reductions in incident STIs (overall 65% and 55% for N. gonorrhoeae) were seen in the recent French DOXYVAC trial comparing 200 mg of doxycycline with Meningococcal B vaccine (4CMenB, Bexsero®) in 332 MSM on HIV PrEP7 and among MSM taking doxycycline daily (doxycycline PrEP) from a small pilot trial in 2011 from the USA (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.08–1.09).8 However, due to the low sample size (n = 30) in the latter, doxycycline PrEP has not yet been recommended by public health organizations and, accordingly, this discussion will focus on doxycycline PEP.

The findings of these PEP studies and similar studies have led the San Francisco Public Health Unit to recommend doxycycline PEP to cis men and trans women who: (1) have had a bacterial STI in the past year; (2) report condomless anal or oral sexual contact with ≥1 cis male or trans female partner in the past year; and (3) those with a history of syphilis.9

Although the interim CDC statement in 2023 after the CROI conference does not advocate for or against doxycycline PEP, it has previously included a box in its HIV PrEP guidelines describing how this doxycycline PEP could be given if required.10 The USA International Antiviral Society in 2022,11 in contrast, states that pending further data on doxycycline’s effect on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and the microbiome, the use of DoxyPEP should be considered on a case-by-case basis. In 2022, the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV and the UK Health Security Agency updated their guidance that they do not endorse the use of doxycycline taken as PEP or PrEP to prevent STIs.12 The WHO has not yet provided any strong statement advocating for or against its use.

In this targeted review, we reviewed the published literature regarding the effects of using doxycycline on AMR, specifically in the four most common bacterial STIs, other bacterial pathogens, and on the human microbiome as a proxy for what could occur in practice during widespread doxycycline PEP use. Where no direct evidence was available for doxycycline, we provide evidence from other antimicrobials or current AMR concerns. Using this evidence, we generated seven hypotheses pertaining to important concerns about the widespread use of doxycycline PEP.

AMR

AMR in STIs

AMR in N. gonorrhoeae

The doxycycline PEP randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs)3,4 have only published results on the effects of doxycycline PEP on tetracycline resistance in N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis. No statistically significant increase in doxycycline resistance was seen in either of the two RCTs that reported this outcome.3,4 The important caveats to this finding include the short time of follow-up and the very small number of C. trachomatis [n = 5 (IPERGAY)3] and N. gonorrhoeae isolates assessed [n = 9 (IPERGAY);3  n = 47 (DoxyPEP)].4 Notably, a substantial proportion of the N. gonorrhoeae isolates detected in the doxycycline arm of the DoxyPEP study were cultured from the oropharynx—a site where infection is mostly asymptomatic and where the risk is high for the acquisition of AMR through horizontal gene transfer of resistance determinants from commensal Neisseria species.13 Interim results presented at CROI 202314 found that in each arm of the trial, two high-level tetracycline-resistant N. gonorrhoeae isolates were found, but in the DoxyPEP arm, there were an additional four low-level-resistant N. gonorrhoeae isolates (none in the control arm). The anatomical site from which these isolates were cultured from was not specified. Additional data from CROI 202314 reported that the N. gonorrhoeae in the DoxyPEP arm had acquired resistance to a greater number of other antibiotics compared with those in the control arm. Among 20 N. gonorrhoeae isolates from DoxyPEP users, three were resistant to azithromycin, two to ciprofloxacin, and one to benzylpenicillin. In 19 non-PEP users, the only additional resistance found was to benzylpenicillin in two isolates. No isolate was resistant to ceftriaxone or cefixime, the drugs currently used to treat gonorrhoea. However low sample size limits inference of statistical significance.

While there was no significant increase in doxycycline-resistant commensal Neisseria in the DoxyPEP arm between baseline and Month 12 (63%–70%), at Month 12, however, there was significantly higher doxycycline resistance compared with control (70% versus 45%, P = 0.0017).13

Co-selection of resistance to other classes of antimicrobials is another possible concern for N. gonorrhoeae and other bacterial species.15 Many concerns are hypothetical, i.e. because we lack evidence that we hope will be gathered in many ongoing and future studies. Both the tet(M) gene and the rpsJ V57M mutation are strongly associated with gonococcal resistance and decreased susceptibility to doxycycline and selection by doxycycline use. However, also increased MtrCDE efflux is associated with doxycycline decreased susceptibility to doxycycline as well as to many other antimicrobials.16 Furthermore, both the tet(M) gene and the rpsJ V57M mutation may decrease susceptibility to other current but also future tetracycline derivates. Recent genomic studies of N. gonorrhoeae isolates have highlighted the potential for selecting cross-resistance to other antimicrobials with doxycycline use, especially when all tetracycline lineages are selected.17,18 Among MSM populations, the majority of N. gonorrhoeae isolates were found to have intermediate tetracycline MICs, which the authors warned could represent a reservoir for rapid evolution of resistance.17

AMR in C. trachomatis

No evidence of elevated doxycycline MICs was found in the five C. trachomatis isolates assessed in the IPERGAY study.3 The successful use of doxycycline for STIs for over five decades with little evidence of the emergence of resistance19 suggests it is a limited risk that doxycycline PEP selects C. trachomatis resistance to doxycycline. Nonetheless, the transfer of tetracycline resistance genes between Chlamydia species has been reported in vitro in pigs, and likely resulted from pigs being fed fish meal treated with tetracyclines.20 Similarly treatment failures with reduced susceptibility to tetracycline has been reported.21–24 In the DoxyPEP study,4  C. trachomatis incidence was reduced by 74%–88%. The emergence of doxycycline resistance in C. trachomatis would be serious as it is the most efficacious treatment for urogenital25 and rectal chlamydial infections,26 especially for lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) infections.

AMR in Mycoplasma genitalium

Doxycycline is very important for empirical treatment of non-gonococcal urethritis and cervicitis and has emerged as an important component of sequential therapy for M. genitalium. In the sequential therapy, doxycycline is given for 7 days to cure 30%–40% of M. genitalium infections27 and reduce the M. genitalium bacterial load in many of the uncured M. genitalium infections and thereby facilitate the clearance by subsequent macrolide or fluoroquinolone therapy. Resistance to doxycycline in M. genitalium would reduce the effectiveness of doxycycline in this successful empiric as well as sequential treatment. In an IPERGAY sub-study, the authors reported mutations that have been previously associated with tetracycline resistance in other bacterial species in-vivo in participants who had taken doxycycline for treatment or prophylaxis, suggesting that the acquisition of these mutations may have been enhanced by the use of doxycycline.28 Another recent study has found that tetracycline resistance in M. genitalium can be caused by alterations in intrinsic efflux pumps resulting in increased MICs of doxycycline, tetracycline and minocycline.29 Intensive intermittent use of doxycycline, particularly in a high-prevalent MSM population on HIV PrEP, may thus reduce the efficacy of not only doxycycline but also one of the last resort M. genitalium treatments—minocycline.30,31

AMR in T. pallidum

Difficulties with culturing T. pallidum have made it difficult to evaluate tetracycline resistance in T. pallidum.32 There are, however, rare published reports of treatment failure following doxycycline therapy (n = 1),33 and resistance-conferring tet(B) genes were detected in a small proportion of T. pallidum-positive samples in a single study.34 However, contamination of these samples with tet(B) from another source cannot be excluded.32 Resistance to doxycycline could hypothetically emerge via acquisition of tet(B), but also mutations in ribosomal proteins or point mutations in the 16S rRNA gene. Whilst these 16S rRNA mutations have not been detected thus far, they are rarely screened for and they might emerge explosively, as was the case for the analogous 23S rRNA macrolide-resistance mutations whose prevalence increased from 0% to 90% in T. pallidum in some settings during only 10 years following intensive use of macrolides.35,36

In summary, for the treatment of STIs, while doxycycline is not recommended for treatment of N. gonorrhoeae due to the high rates of resistance, the potential risks for C. trachomatis where doxycycline remains the optimal treatment, M. genitalium where doxycycline is important for empirical treatment as well as in sequential treatment, and effects in regard to selection of cross-resistance to other tetracyclines and other classes of antimicrobials, enhanced phenotypic and molecular doxycycline resistance surveillance are urgently warranted, including tests of cure and genomic sequencing of STI pathogens from doxycycline treatment failures and individuals taking doxycycline PEP.

AMR in other pathogenic bacterial species

The WHO has declared AMR as one of the greatest threats to global health that will cost an estimated US$3.4 trillion a year by 2030.37 It has been estimated that AMR infections resulted in 1.3–5.0 million deaths in 2019.38 The majority were caused by six pathogens, most of which can also be human commensals in different anatomical sites—namely Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. A number of studies have found that much of the AMR in these pathogens is caused by bystander selection, i.e. due to antimicrobials used for other indications.39 An example of this effect is the strong positive association between country-level penicillin consumption and reduced susceptibility to penicillin in S. pneumoniae.40 Further studies have suggested the need to keep population-level antimicrobial consumption below certain thresholds to prevent the emergence of AMR.31 To the best of our knowledge, no such threshold has been established for tetracyclines. Tetracyclines such as doxycycline do, however, also exert an evident bystander effect.15 A recent systematic review of the AMR selection by the use of oral tetracyclines on human flora41 reported increases in tetracycline-resistant Streptococcus strains in subgingival flora, E. coli in the gastrointestinal tract and a 5.8-fold increase in tetracycline-resistant respiratory tract pathogens. An RCT also found that the use of tetracycline for acne was associated with increased prevalence of tetracycline resistance in E. coli in the guts of patients and their relatives.42 Another RCT found that the receipt of 14 days of oral tetracycline resulted in an elevated prevalence of tetracycline resistance in subgingival bacteria and that this effect persisted for over 12 months.43 Interim data from CROI 202314 reported an 8% absolute increase in doxycycline-resistant S. aureus in the DoxyPEP study4 arm (from 4% to 12%, P = 0.0008) (but not in the control arm) between baseline and Month 12. No change was seen for MRSA. Larger sample sizes will be required to evaluate if these increases are significant.

AMR in commensal bacterial species

By virtue of their frequent ubiquitous presence and high bacterial loads, commensal bacterial are at the highest risk for bystander selection of AMR.39 This is of significant concern as selected chromosomal and plasmid-harboured AMR determinants can be subsequently transferred to pathogens via horizontal gene transfer mechanisms such as conjugation and transformation.44 Plasmids frequently contain genes that confer resistance to tetracyclines as well as other classes of antimicrobials. Intense doxycycline selection pressure could thus also increase the prevalence of resistance to other classes of antimicrobials.15,45,46 While tetracyclines are not recommended for the primary treatment of anaerobic infections, previous reports have shown that increased use of tetracyclines results in commensal anaerobic bacteria no longer responding to first- and second-generation tetracyclines.47

Persistence, tolerance and AMR

AMR involves the inherited ability of a bacterial species to grow at high concentrations of an antimicrobial. As such it involves an increase in the MIC of the antimicrobial for the microbe.48 Tolerance, in contrast, refers to the ability to survive transient exposure to high concentrations of antimicrobials without an increase in antimicrobial MIC. Tolerance is typically acquired by slowing down several bacterial metabolic processes.48 Transient exposures to high in vitro concentrations of antimicrobials, including tetracyclines, has been shown to induce tolerance in all bacterial species studied thus far, including N. gonorrhoeae.49 Bacterial tolerance has also been linked to persistent and recurrent infections with E. coli and P. aeruginosa.50 Tolerance has also been shown to play a key role in the pathway toward the genesis of AMR in a number of bacteria.48,50

Off-target effects of tetracyclines

In many bacterial species, tetracyclines at therapeutic and subtherapeutic doses can induce or select resistance to other classes of antimicrobials through co-localization of AMR genes on chromosomes or plasmids, enhanced activity of efflux pumps51 and other mechanisms.52 In addition, tetracyclines can have antimetalloprotease and possibly anti-inflammatory activity in humans.52 Several studies have found an increased risk of various infections following long-term antibiotic (mainly tetracycline) use for acne [upper respiratory tract infection (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.4–3.2), urinary tract infection in women (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4–2.5) and pharyngitis (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.5–12.5)].53 This effect may be mediated by reduced colonization resistance for the pathogens. Accordingly, tetracyclines may reduce the abundance of commensal bacteria, which normally protect their host from initial colonization and subsequent infection by the pathogen.54 Doxycycline can cause photosensitivity in response to UV radiation, an effect that is mediated by doxycycline-induced oxidative stress and mitochondrial toxicity.55 Finally, a range of rare adverse events experienced by patients taking doxycycline have been noted to improve or resolve following doxycycline discontinuation, such as benign intracranial hypertension and oesophagitis.55 These uncommon adverse events were reflected in the low discontinuation rates in the recent doxycycline trials—0.9% and 2.0% in the DOXYVAC7 and DoxyPEP4 trials, respectively. In the DoxyPEP trial, five participants had an adverse event possibly related to doxycycline, while in the DOXYVAC trial, drug-related adverse events occurred in 5.7% taking doxycycline and 34.6% with 4CMenB.

Altered microbiome

The effects of antimicrobials on the microbiome, which frequently protects us from infections and diseases, are extremely complex. In particular, much remains to be learnt about the clinical significance of antimicrobial-induced changes in the microbiome. Recent studies have, for example, shown that a number of classes of antimicrobials have a dose-dependent effect on increasing the risk for a range of conditions such as obesity, allergy, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, coeliac disease and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).56 This effect may persist for decades after the cessation of the antimicrobial and may even be transferred transgenerationally—presumably both the effect and transfer are associated with the microbiome.56 Whilst tetracyclines appear to be one of the safer classes of antimicrobials for the gut microbiome,57 a number of studies have found that they can induce large perturbations in the microbiome. For example, one RCT found that doxycycline taken for 10 days resulted in reduced gut bacterial diversity including a 100-fold reduction in bifidobacteria, as well as increased prevalence of tetracycline resistance in gut commensals.58

The effects on the microbiome may be even more complex in those living with HIV, who show an altered microbiome compared with those who are HIV negative.59 Lastly, tetracyclines have been reported to have an effect on the gut microbiomes of both humans and food animals such as pigs, chickens and cows.60–62

Further evidence of clinically relevant effects on the microbiome come from studies that reveal that tetracycline intensifies the blood-thinning effect of anticoagulant medication (via reducing the abundance/activity of bacteria that produce vitamin K).55 Studies have found that the concomitant consumption of doxycycline with acenocoumarol or phenprocoumon increases the risk of bleeding by approximately 2.5-fold.63

Arrested immunity and loss of colonization resistance

Human studies have theorized that if STIs are treated before immunity is developed to the infection, then the risk of reinfection can be higher due to the loss of any temporary and/or partial immunity. A study following up women with genital C. trachomatis infection found that those treated with antimicrobials had a 4-fold higher probability of reinfection than women in whom the infection was cleared by their immune system.64 The authors concluded that treatment for chlamydia may attenuate protective immunity in some patients. Similar findings have been found for syphilis.65 In the case of chlamydia, this arrested immunity is a plausible explanation for the paradoxical increase in chlamydia incidence in populations that have experienced intensive screening and treatment.66,67 It is possible that intermittent doxycycline use will reduce individual and population partial immunity to C. trachomatis as well several other STI agents and pathogens and thus paradoxically increase the risk of reinfection. It is, however, important to note that the major doxycycline PEP studies have not found any evidence of arrested immunity but only reduced incidence (including reinfections) of various STIs.

Difficulties in syphilis diagnosis and treatment

Doxycycline is active against T. pallidum; however, because 14–28 day treatments are needed to effectively cure many syphilis cases, doxycycline PEP may fail to cure a proportion of incident syphilis cases. This problem will be aggravated by the fact that in the contemporary syphilis epidemics, a substantial proportion of all the cases of syphilis can be repeat episodes.68 Syphilis reinfections are typically asymptomatic and detected only by detecting a two-titre increase in non-treponemal tests.69,70 Hypothetically, this detection could prove difficult for healthcare practitioners in a number of settings68 such as where only treponemal tests (rapid point-of-care tests) are used. It remains unknown how the intermittent use of doxycycline will affect the clinical and serological progression of syphilis. We theorize that if someone uses doxycycline PEP a week after reinfection with T. pallidum, this may limit the increase in non-treponemal titre to a maximum of one titre instead of two titres if no doxycycline has been taken. This would mean that this repeat episode of syphilis would not be diagnosed at this visit. In this circumstance the growth and dissemination of T. pallidum could be delayed and missed. Because T. pallidum is known to disseminate and invade the CNS early after infection, it is also possible that neurosyphilis infections will be masked and their detection delayed.

Historical examples of chemoprophylaxis were halted due to AMR

Chemoprophylaxis pre- and post-sex have been used since World War I in attempts to reduce the incidence of STIs.71–76 Although many of these studies used historical control groups, the initial studies reported impressive reductions in the incidence of STIs such as gonorrhoea, syphilis and chancroid.72 As with the recent results of the doxycycline PEP trials, these positive findings generated considerable enthusiasm for chemoprophylaxis.73 However, the widespread use of antimicrobials was followed by the emergence of AMR. In one such study, the use of minocycline PEP to prevent N. gonorrhoeae infection was noted to be efficacious against susceptible N. gonorrhoeae isolates but had no effect against resistant isolates.73 It was concluded that extensive use of minocycline would ‘have limited effectiveness as a public-health measure because of the tendency to select resistant gonococci.’ These insights curbed the enthusiasm for these interventions.73

Doxycycline PEP results in high doxycycline exposure in a subset of users

In the DoxyPEP study,4 while participants were permitted to take one dose per day, the median number of doses taken per month was 4 based on self-reporting, which is similar to that used in the IPERGAY trial where participants took a median of 6.8 pills (680 mg) per month (about three 200 mg doses).3 However, in the DoxyPEP trial, 25% took 10 or more doses (≥2 g per month).4 These doses are higher than the 1.4 g (100 mg twice a day for 7 days) used to treat chlamydia. Therefore for those where chlamydia is the sole infection, the preventative doxycycline PEP consumption was higher than if these participants were treated monthly for chlamydia.

The only organization that currently recommends the use of PEP (the San Francisco Public Health Unit) follows the DoxyPEP study4 protocol that allows the very high level consumption of 200 mg of doxycycline per day.9 Of note, the San Francisco guidelines continuing recommending 3 monthly STI screening in those using doxycycline, which may question the efficacious utility of doxycycline use between screens.

Rollout of doxycycline PEP and the precautionary principle

If public health agencies advocate for the use of doxycycline PEP beyond controlled research settings this implies that they have concluded that sufficient evidence is available and the benefits outweigh the risks and potential future harms. Understandably, the lay public will consider this means that doxycycline PEP is evidently safe and its use will likely increase dramatically among MSM but also additional populations. It will be very hard to reverse this trend and we cannot exclude that additional therapeutic antimicrobials will also be in the pipeline for PEP (or PrEP), i.e. prescribed by clinicians or purchased online without a prescription (see below). This would significantly challenge a lot of the work performed to improve antimicrobial stewardship globally.

Limitations

We did not use a systematic review methodology. In addition, interpretation of published evidence is often limited by small sample sizes and few isolates tested for AMR, both in the doxycycline PEP studies3,4 and in the published literature. This makes drawing robust conclusions difficult. Ongoing surveillance of doxycycline PEP studies will hopefully provide more definitive evidence. Given these issues, we cannot exclude any biases arising from the limited evidence currently available and cognitive biases in our interpretation of this evidence.

Important counter arguments

In addition to the proven efficacy of doxycycline PEP, we acknowledge a number of other counter arguments and where doxycycline PEP use could provide benefits.

Firstly, it has been estimated that approximately 8%–10% of people using HIV PrEP have used doxycycline prophylaxis from surveys of clients at London, Melbourne and Amsterdam sexual health clinics.74–76 A reasonable argument could be made that it would be preferable for these individuals to take their doxycycline under supervision. This is of particular concern given the small number of individuals who reported using antibiotics other than doxycycline such as amoxicillin,75 azithromycin77 or ciprofloxacin76 as PEP in studies undertaken prior to the recent doxycycline PEP trials,3,4 i.e. previous studies in the UK (n = 107 from 2018),73 Belgium (n = 187 from 2022)75 and the Netherlands (n = 321 from 2018),74 respectively. Many of these antibiotics were purchased online or were leftovers.77 Online purchase of doxycycline without a prescription is also possible. A popular international website, for example, has since 2018 offered online links to pharmacies that provide access to HIV PreP and doxycycline with or without a prescription (https://www.purchase-prep.com/). Secondly, if doxycycline could be targeted to the individuals most central in the sexual network, this could have a dramatic effect on the incidence of C. trachomatis, T. pallidum and possibly N. gonorrhoeae infections, at least in some countries. In Australia, for example, it has been estimated that 22 730 individuals have been prescribed HIV PrEP, with a small core group of 6% of these individuals accounting for 36% of all STIs.78 Targeting this group of 6% may have a large effect on STI incidence. Similarly, in the IPERGAY study, analysis among 429 MSM reported 39% of participants accounted for 86% of STIs.79 Analysis of 10 500 electronic health records by Traeger et al.80 explored 10 hypothetical doxycycline PEP-prescribing strategies and suggested that prescribing doxycycline PEP for a period of 12 months to people with an STI diagnosis, regardless of HIV PrEP status, could avert 42% of all subsequent STIs (while reducing the number of prescriptions by 59%). Similarly, targeting those with a syphilis diagnosis would avert 14% of all STIs and reduce prescriptions by 91%. Thirdly, by reducing the incidence of these STIs, targeted doxycycline PEP could also reduce the consumption of ceftriaxone and possibly macrolides in this population.14 Fourthly, proponents of doxycycline chemoprophylaxis argue that doxycycline is already used widely for the management of acne, malaria prophylaxis, skin and soft tissue and other infections. Whilst this is true, as reviewed above, this use has resulted in the emergence of AMR in a range of bacterial species as well as other problems. Lastly, some users and prescribers have reported that doxycycline PEP can empower users to take control of their sexual health. They report that a lower STI incidence may reduce their distress, thereby making sex more enjoyable for them.

In summary, doxycycline PEP is a novel intervention that may reduce the incidence of STIs, particularly of some STIs among high-risk MSM or TGW on HIV PrEP and MSM/TGW who are HIV positive. These findings are exceedingly exciting. However, as detailed above, many unknowns remain regarding: the long-term effects of intermittent, frequently high-consumption, doxycycline use (in PEP and PrEP), and likely future use of additional antimicrobials, and especially potentially negative impact on human microbiomes; selection of AMR and/or antimicrobial tolerance in STI agents, other pathogens and commensals; doxycycline off-target effects; effects on arrested immunity and colonization resistance; and effective messages concerning STI prevention and antimicrobial stewardship. Based on the need for continued collection of evidence regarding broader and long-term consequences, we consider it would be more prudent to follow the precautionary principle and provide doxycycline PEP in controlled settings, such as prioritizing prescriptions targeted at those with a recent STI combined with ongoing AMR surveillance for STIs, other pathogens and commensals. More attention should be placed also on the development of STI vaccines,81,82 and increased access to testing of symptomatic STI cases, including increased implementation of websites providing access to self-sampling testing kits83 or to pathology centres84 and the development of rapid, accurate point-of-care tests (detecting STIs plus AMR determinants).85 Finally, it is clear that people are already taking doxycycline for STI prophylaxis, some purchasing this online, and it is important that clinicians are fully informed of the potential risks to users and the possible population effects from AMR.

Contributor Information

Fabian Yuh Shiong Kong, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Chris Kenyon, HIV/STI Unit, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium; Division of Infectious Diseases and HIV Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

Magnus Unemo, WHO Collaborating Centre for Gonorrhoea and Other STIs, National Reference Laboratory for STIs, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden; Faculty of Population Health Sciences, Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

This work was undertaken as part of routine work. F.Y.S.K is supported by a University of Melbourne Faculty C.R. Roper Fellowship and by the Australian Research Council Industrial Transformation Research Hub to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance (IH190100021) .

Transparency declarations

None to declare.

References

  • 1. WHO . Global Progress Report on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexually Transmitted Infections, 2021. Accountability for the Global Health Sector Strategies 2016–2021: Actions for Impact.  2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240027077.
  • 2. Bavinton  BR, Grulich  AE. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: scaling up for impact now and in the future. Lancet Public Health  2021; 6: e528–33. 10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00112-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Molina  J-M, Charreau  I, Chidiac  C  et al.  Post-exposure prophylaxis with doxycycline to prevent sexually transmitted infections in men who have sex with men: an open-label randomised substudy of the ANRS IPERGAY trial. Lancet Infect Dis  2018; 18: 308–17. 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30725-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Luetkemeyer  AF, Donnell  D, Dombrowski  JC  et al.  Postexposure doxycycline to prevent bacterial sexually transmitted infections. N Engl J Med  2023; 388: 1296–306. 10.1056/NEJMoa2211934 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. CDC . Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2018.  2018. https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats18/STDSurveillance2018-full-report.pdf.
  • 6. La Ruche  G, Goubard  A, Berçot  B  et al.  Gonococcal infections and emergence of gonococcal decreased susceptibility to cephalosporins in France, 2001 to 2012. Euro Surveill  2014; 19: pii-20885. 10.2807/1560-7917.ES2014.19.34.20885 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Mascolini  M. DoxyPEP and Meningococcal Vax Keep Protecting MSM PrEP Users from STIs. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Seattle, Washington, USA,  2023. https://www.natap.org/2023/CROI/croi_03.htm.
  • 8. Bolan  RK, Beymer  MR, Weiss  RE  et al.  Doxycycline prophylaxis to reduce incident syphilis among HIV-infected men who have sex with men who continue to engage in high risk sex: a randomized, controlled pilot study. Sex Transm Dis  2015; 42: 98–103. 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000216 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. San Francisco Department of Public Health . Health Update: Doxycycline Post-exposure Prophylaxis Reduces Incidence of Sexually Transmitted Infections.  20 October 2022. https://www.sfcdcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Health-Update-Doxycycline-Post-Exposure-Prophylaxis-Reduces-Incidence-of-Sexually-Transmitted-Infections-SFDPH-FINAL-10.20.2022.pdf.
  • 10. CDC . Postexposure Prophylaxis for HIV and STIs. https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/clinical-primary.htm#CautionsForDoxyPEP.
  • 11. Gandhi  RT, Bedimo  R, Hoy  JF  et al.  Antiretroviral drugs for treatment and prevention of HIV infection in adults: 2022 recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel. JAMA  2023; 329: 63–84. 10.1001/jama.2022.22246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Kohli  M, Medland  N, Fifer  H  et al.  BASHH updated position statement on doxycycline as prophylaxis for sexually transmitted infections. Sex Transm Infect  2022; 98: 235–6. 10.1136/sextrans-2022-055425 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Fiore  MA, Raisman  JC, Wong  NH  et al.  Exploration of the Neisseria resistome reveals resistance mechanisms in commensals that may be acquired by N. gonorrhoeae through horizontal gene transfer. Antibiotics (Basel)  2020; 9: 656. 10.3390/antibiotics9100656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Luetkemeyer  A, Donnell  D, Dombrowski  J  et al.  Doxy-PEP and antimicrobial resistance in S. aureus, N. gonorrhoeae, and commensal Neisseria. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2023. https://www.natap.org/2023/CROI/croi_11.htm.
  • 15. Nielsen  HUK, Hammerum  AM, Ekelund  K  et al.  Tetracycline and macrolide co-resistance in Streptococcus pyogenes: co-selection as a reason for increase in macrolide-resistant S. pyogenes?  Microb Drug Resist  2004; 10: 231–8. 10.1089/mdr.2004.10.231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Unemo  M, Shafer  WM. Antimicrobial resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the 21st century: past, evolution, and future. Clin Microbiol Rev  2014; 27: 587–613. 10.1128/CMR.00010-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Mortimer  TD, Grad  YH. A genomic perspective on the near-term impact of doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis on Neisseria gonorrhoeae antimicrobial resistance.  medRxiv  2023;   10.1101/2023.03.14.23287223 [DOI]
  • 18. Vanbaelen  T, Manoharan-Basil  SS, Kenyon  C. Doxycycline post exposure prophylaxis could induce cross-resistance to other classes of antimicrobials in Neisseria gonorrhoeae: an in-silico analysis. Sex Transm Dis  2023; 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001810 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Wang  SA, Papp  JR, Stamm  WE  et al.  Evaluation of antimicrobial resistance and treatment failures for Chlamydia trachomatis: a meeting report. J Infect Dis  2005; 191: 917–23. 10.1086/428290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Seth-Smith  HMB, Wanninger  S, Bachmann  N  et al.  The Chlamydia suis genome exhibits high levels of diversity, plasticity, and mobile antibiotic resistance: comparative genomics of a recent livestock cohort shows influence of treatment regimes. Genome Biol Evol  2017; 9: 750–60. 10.1093/gbe/evx043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Bhengraj  AR, Vardhan  H, Srivastava  P  et al.  Decreased susceptibility to azithromycin and doxycycline in clinical isolates of Chlamydia trachomatis obtained from recurrently infected female patients in India. Chemotherapy  2010; 56: 371–7. 10.1159/000314998 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Jones  RB, Van Der Pol  B, Martin  DH  et al.  Partial characterization of Chlamydia trachomatis isolates resistant to multiple antibiotics. J Infect Dis  1990; 162: 1309–15. 10.1093/infdis/162.6.1309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Lefevre  JC, Lepargneur  JP. Comparative in vitro susceptibility of a tetracycline-resistant Chlamydia trachomatis strain isolated in Toulouse (France). Sex Transm Dis  1998; 25: 350–2. 10.1097/00007435-199808000-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Somani  J, Bhullar  VB, Workowski  KA  et al.  Multiple drug-resistant Chlamydia trachomatis associated with clinical treatment failure. J Infect Dis  2000; 181: 1421–7. 10.1086/315372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Mohammadzadeh  F, Dolatian  M, Jorjani  M  et al.  Urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis treatment failure with azithromycin: a meta-analysis. Int J Reprod Biomed  2019; 17: 603–20. https://doi.org/10.18502%2Fijrm.v17i9.5093 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Lau  A, Kong  FYS, Fairley  CK  et al.  Azithromycin or doxycycline for asymptomatic rectal Chlamydia trachomatis. N Engl J Med  2021; 384: 2418–27. 10.1056/NEJMoa2031631 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Jensen  JS, Cusini  M, Gomberg  M  et al.  2021 European guideline on the management of Mycoplasma genitalium infections. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol  2022; 36: 641–50. 10.1111/jdv.17972 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Bercot  B, Charreau  I, Rousseau  C  et al.  High prevalence and high rate of antibiotic resistance of Mycoplasma genitalium infections in men who have sex with men: a substudy of the ANRS IPERGAY pre-exposure prophylaxis trial. Clin Infect Dis  2021; 73: e2127–e33. 10.1093/cid/ciaa1832 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Geisler  W. What is the Risk of Doxycycline Resistance Developing in Mycoplasma genitalium. STI Post-Exposure Prophylaxis with Doxycycline Consultation Agenda: NACCHO, 2022. https://www.naccho.org/blog/articles/sti-post-exposure-prophylaxis-with-doxycycline-consultation-release.
  • 30. De Baetselier  I, Kenyon  C, Vanden Berghe  W  et al.  An alarming high prevalence of resistance-associated mutations to macrolides and fluoroquinolones in Mycoplasma genitalium in Belgium: results from samples collected between 2015 and 2018. Sex Transm Infect  2021; 97: 297–303. 10.1136/sextrans-2020-054511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Kenyon  C, Manoharan-Basil  SS, Van Dijck  C. Is there a resistance threshold for macrolide consumption? Positive evidence from an ecological analysis of resistance data from Streptococcus pneumoniae, Treponema pallidum, and Mycoplasma genitalium. Microb Drug Resist  2021; 8: 1079–86. 10.1089/mdr.2020.0490 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Lukehart  SA. What is the Risk of Doxycycline Resistance Developing in Treponema pallidum. STI Post-Exposure Prophylaxis with Doxycycline Consultation Agenda: NACCHO 2022. https://www.naccho.org/blog/articles/sti-post-exposure-prophylaxis-with-doxycycline-consultation-release.
  • 33. Zenilman  JM, Rand  S, Barditch  P  et al.  Asymptomatic neurosyphilis after doxycycline therapy for early latent syphilis. Sex Transm Dis  1993; 20: 346–7. 10.1097/00007435-199320060-00009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Xiao  Y, Liu  S, Liu  Z  et al.  Molecular subtyping and surveillance of resistance genes in Treponema pallidum DNA from patients with secondary and latent syphilis in Hunan, China. Sex Transm Dis  2016; 43: 310–6. 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000445 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Kenyon  C. Prevalence of macrolide resistance in Treponema pallidum is associated with macrolide consumption. J Med Microbiol  2019; 68: 119–23. 10.1099/jmm.0.000885 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Grimes  M, Sahi  SK, Godornes  BC  et al.  Two mutations associated with macrolide resistance in Treponema pallidum: increasing prevalence and correlation with molecular strain type in Seattle, Washington. Sex Transm Dis  2012; 39: 954. 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31826ae7a8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. UN Environment Programme . Environmental Dimensions of Antimicrobial Resistance: Summary for Policymakers.  2022. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/summary-policymakers-environmental-dimensions-antimicrobial-resistance.
  • 38. Murray  CJL, Ikuta  KS, Sharara  F  et al.  Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet  2022; 399: 629–55. 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Tedijanto  C, Olesen  SW, Grad  YH  et al.  Estimating the proportion of bystander selection for antibiotic resistance among potentially pathogenic bacterial flora. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A  2018; 115: E11988–95. 10.1073/pnas.1810840115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Goossens  H, Ferech  M, Vander Stichele  R  et al.  Outpatient antibiotic use in Europe and association with resistance: a cross-national database study. Lancet  2005; 365: 579–87. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17907-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Truong  R, Tang  V, Grennan  T  et al.  A systematic review of the impacts of oral tetracycline class antibiotics on antimicrobial resistance in normal human flora. JAC Antimicrob Resist  2022; 4: dlac009. 10.1093/jacamr/dlac009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Adams  SJ, Cunliffe  WJ, Cooke  EM. Long-term antibiotic therapy for acne vulgaris: effects on the bowel flora of patients and their relatives. J Invest Dermatol  1985; 85: 35–7. 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12275004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Rodrigues  RMJ, Gonçalves  C, Souto  R  et al.  Antibiotic resistance profile of the subgingival microbiota following systemic or local tetracycline therapy. J Clin Periodontol  2004; 31: 420–7. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00493.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Von Wintersdorff  CJ, Penders  J, Van Niekerk  JM  et al.  Dissemination of antimicrobial resistance in microbial ecosystems through horizontal gene transfer. Front Microbiol  2016; 7: 173. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Harada  K, Asai  T, Ozawa  M  et al.  Farm-level impact of therapeutic antimicrobial use on antimicrobial-resistant populations of Escherichia coli isolates from pigs. Microb Drug Resist  2008; 14: 239–44. 10.1089/mdr.2008.0836 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Cohen  SP, McMurry  LM, Hooper  DC  et al.  Cross-resistance to fluoroquinolones in multiple-antibiotic-resistant (Mar) Escherichia coli selected by tetracycline or chloramphenicol: decreased drug accumulation associated with membrane changes in addition to OmpF reduction. Antimicrob Agents Chemother  1989; 33: 1318–25. 10.1128/AAC.33.8.1318 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Nagy  E, Urban  E, Nord  CE  et al.  Antimicrobial susceptibility of Bacteroides fragilis group isolates in Europe: 20 years of experience. Clin Microbiol Infect  2011; 17: 371–9. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03256.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Brauner  A, Fridman  O, Gefen  O  et al.  Distinguishing between resistance, tolerance and persistence to antibiotic treatment. Nat Rev Microbiol  2016; 14: 320–30. 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.34 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Salcedo-Sora  JE, Kell  DB. A quantitative survey of bacterial persistence in the presence of antibiotics: towards antipersister antimicrobial discovery. Antibiotics (Basel)  2020; 9: 508. 10.3390/antibiotics9080508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Ciofu  O, Tolker-Nielsen  T. Tolerance and resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms to antimicrobial agents–how P. aeruginosa can escape antibiotics. Front Microbiol  2019; 10: 913. 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00913 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. George  AM, Levy  SB. Amplifiable resistance to tetracycline, chloramphenicol, and other antibiotics in Escherichia coli: involvement of a non-plasmid-determined efflux of tetracycline. J Bacteriol  1983; 155: 531–40. 10.1128/jb.155.2.531-540.1983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Kohanski  MA, DePristo  MA, Collins  JJ. Sublethal antibiotic treatment leads to multidrug resistance via radical-induced mutagenesis. Mol Cell  2010; 37: 311–20. 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.01.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Bhate  K, Lin  L-Y, Barbieri  JS  et al.  Is there an association between long-term antibiotics for acne and subsequent infection sequelae and antimicrobial resistance? A systematic review. BJGP Open  2021; 5: BJGPO.2020.0181. 10.3399/BJGPO.2020.0181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Buffie  CG, Pamer  EG. Microbiota-mediated colonization resistance against intestinal pathogens. Nat Rev Immunol  2013; 13: 790–801. 10.1038/nri3535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Styka  AN, Savitz  DA. Assessment of Long-term Health Effects of Antimalarial Drugs When Used for Prophylaxis. The National Academies Press,  2020. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25688/assessment-of-long-term-health-effects-of-antimalarial-drugs-when-used-for-prophylaxis. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Aversa  Z, Atkinson  EJ, Schafer  MJ  et al.  Association of infant antibiotic exposure with childhood health outcomes. Mayo Clinic Proc  2021; 96: 66–77. 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.07.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Tariq  R, Cho  J, Kapoor  S  et al.  Low risk of primary Clostridium difficile infection with tetracyclines: a systematic review and meta analysis. Clin Infect Dis  2018; 66: 514–22. 10.1093/cid/cix833 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Saarela  M, Maukonen  J, Von Wright  A  et al.  Tetracycline susceptibility of the ingested Lactobacillus acidophilus LaCH-5 and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis Bb-12 strains during antibiotic/probiotic intervention. Int J Antimicrob Ag  2007; 29: 271–80. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2006.09.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Tuddenham  SA, Koay  WLA, Zhao  N  et al.  The impact of human immunodeficiency virus infection on gut microbiota alpha-diversity: an individual-level meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis  2020; 70: 615–27. 10.1093/cid/ciz258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Zhang  W, Huang  M-H, Qi  F-F  et al.  Effect of trace tetracycline concentrations on the structure of a microbial community and the development of tetracycline resistance genes in sequencing batch reactors. Bioresour Technol  2013; 150: 9–14. 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Jung  JY, Ahn  Y, Khare  S  et al.  An in vitro study to assess the impact of tetracycline on the human intestinal microbiome. Anaerobe  2018; 49: 85–94. 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2017.12.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Carman  RJ, Simon  MA, Petzold  HE  3rd  et al.  Antibiotics in the human food chain: establishing no effect levels of tetracycline, neomycin, and erythromycin using a chemostat model of the human colonic microflora. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol  2005; 43: 168–80. 10.1016/j.yrtph.2005.06.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Penning-van Beest  F, Koerselman  J, Herings  R. Risk of major bleeding during concomitant use of antibiotic drugs and coumarin anticoagulants. J Thromb Haemost  2008; 6: 284–90. 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.02844.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Geisler  WM, Lensing  SY, Press  CG  et al.  Spontaneous resolution of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women and protection from reinfection. J Infect Dis  2013; 207: 1850–6. 10.1093/infdis/jit094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Magnuson  HJ, Thomas  EW, Olansky  S  et al.  Inoculation syphilis in human volunteers. Medicine (Baltimore)  1956; 35: 33–82. 10.1097/00005792-195602000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Brunham  RC, Pourbohloul  B, Mak  S  et al.  The unexpected impact of a Chlamydia trachomatis infection control program on susceptibility to reinfection. J Infect Dis  2005; 192: 1836–44. 10.1086/497341 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. van Bergen  JE, Hoenderboom  BM, David  S  et al.  Where to go to in chlamydia control? From infection control towards infectious disease control. Sex Transm Infect  2021; 97: 501–6. 10.1136/sextrans-2021-054992 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Kenyon  C, Lynen  L, Florence  E  et al.  Syphilis reinfections pose problems for syphilis diagnosis in Antwerp, Belgium – 1992 to 2012. Euro Surveill  2014; 19: 20958. 10.2807/1560-7917.ES2014.19.45.20958 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Kenyon  C, Osbak  KK, Apers  L. Repeat syphilis is more likely to be asymptomatic in HIV-infected individuals: a retrospective cohort analysis with important implications for screening. Open Forum Infect Dis  2018; 5: ofy096. 10.1093/ofid/ofy096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Ciesielski  C. Repeat Syphilis Infection in Men who have Sex with Men, 2000–2005, Chicago, IL. 2006 National STD Prevention Conference, Jacksonville, FL, USA, 11 May 2006. #375. https://cdc.confex.com/cdc/std2006/techprogram/P10609.HTM.
  • 71. Loveless  JA, Denton  W. The oral use of sulfathiazole as a prophylaxis for gonorrhea: preliminary report. JAMA  1943; 121: 827–8. 10.1001/jama.1943.02840110029012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Stone  KM, Grimes  DA, Magder  LS. Primary prevention of sexually transmitted diseases: a primer for clinicians. JAMA  1986; 255: 1763–6. 10.1001/jama.1986.03370130119035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Harrison  WO, Hooper  RR, Wiesner  PJ  et al.  A trial of minocycline given after exposure to prevent gonorrhea. N Eng J Med  1979; 300: 1074–8. 10.1056/NEJM197905103001903 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Chow  EPF, Fairley  CK. Use of doxycycline prophylaxis among gay and bisexual men in Melbourne. Lancet HIV  2019; 6: e568–e9. 10.1016/S2352-3018(19)30186-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Carveth-Johnson  T, Stingone  C, Nwokolo  N  et al.  Doxycycline use in MSM taking PrEP. Lancet HIV  2018; 5: e482. 10.1016/S2352-3018(18)30210-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Evers  YJ, van Liere  G, Dukers-Muijrers  N  et al.  Use of doxycycline and other antibiotics to prevent STIs among men who have sex with men visiting sexual health clinics in the Netherlands. Sex Transm Infect  2020; 96: 550–1. 10.1136/sextrans-2019-054325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Vanbaelen  T, Reyniers  T, Rotsaert  A  et al.  Prophylactic use of antibiotics for sexually transmitted infections: awareness and use among HIV PrEP users in Belgium. Sex Transm Infect  2022; 98: 625. 10.1136/sextrans-2022-055511 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Traeger  MW, Guy  R, Asselin  J  et al.  Real-world trends in incidence of bacterial sexually transmissible infections among gay and bisexual men using HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in Australia following nationwide PrEP implementation: an analysis of sentinel surveillance data. Lancet Infect Dis  2022; 22: 1231–41. 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00175-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Zeggagh  J, Bauer  R, Delaugerre  C  et al.  Incidence and risk factors for recurrent sexually transmitted infections among MSM on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. AIDS  2022; 36: 1129–34. 10.1097/QAD.0000000000003187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Traeger  M, Mayer  K, Krakower  D  et al.  Potential impact and efficiency of doxy-PEP among people with or at risk of HIV. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Seattle, Washington, USA,  2023. https://www.natap.org/2023/CROI/croi_06.htm. Abstract 122.
  • 81. Hui  BB, Padeniya  TN, Rebuli  N  et al.  A gonococcal vaccine has the potential to rapidly reduce the incidence of Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection among urban men who have sex with men. J Infect Dis  2022; 225: 983–93. 10.1093/infdis/jiab581 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. McIntosh  EDG. Development of vaccines against the sexually transmitted infections gonorrhoea, syphilis, chlamydia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus and Zika virus. Ther Adv Vaccines Immunother  2020; 8: 2515135520923887. 10.1177/2515135520923887 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Wilson  E, Free  C, Morris  TP  et al.  Internet-accessed sexually transmitted infection (e-STI) testing and results service: a randomised, single-blind, controlled trial. PLoS Med  2017; 14: e1002479. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Gilbert  M, Salway  T, Haag  D  et al.  Use of GetCheckedOnline, a comprehensive web-based testing service for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections. J Med Internet Res  2017; 19: e81. 10.2196/jmir.7097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Dawkins  M, Bishop  L, Walker  P  et al.  Clinical integration of a highly accurate polymerase chain reaction point-of-care test can inform immediate treatment decisions for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and Trichomonas. Sex Transm Dis  2022; 49: 262–7. 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001586 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES