Risk selection and targeted interventions in community-based control of chlamydia

Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 60-65

  Richardus, Jan Hendrik ^a,b   Götz, Hannelore M ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Public Health Service of the Rotterdam Region   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Chlamydia trachomatis; High risk group; Prediction rule; Screening; Transmission modelling

Indexed keywords

AZITHROMYCIN;

CHLAMYDIA; CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS; CHLAMYDIASIS; COMMUNITY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DISEASE CONTROL; DISEASE TRANSMISSION; HEALTH CARE; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; MORBIDITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PREVALENCE; PROBABILITY; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SEXUAL HEALTH;

CHLAMYDIA INFECTIONS; CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS; HEALTH PLAN IMPLEMENTATION; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK FACTORS; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES;

EID: 33845966432     PISSN: 09517375     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e32801154fb     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Wilson JS, Honey E, Templeton A, et al. A systematic review of the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis among European women. Hum Reprod Update 2002; 8:385-394.
2. Cates W Jr, Wasserheit JN. Genital chlamydial infections: epidemiology and reproductive sequelae. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 164:1771-1781.
3. Wagenlehner FM, Weidner W, Naber KG. Chlamydial infections in urology. World J Urol 2006; 24:4-12.
4. Shafer MA, Moncada J, Boyer CB, et al. Comparing first-void urine specimens, self-collected vaginal swabs, and endocervical specimens to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae by a nucleic acid amplification test. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41:4395-4399.
5. Gray JA. Screening: evidence-based healthcare. How to make health policy and management decisions. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.
6. Gray JA. New concepts in screening. Br J Gen Pract 2004; 54:292-298.
7. Scholes D, Stergachis A, Heidrich FE, et al. Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical chlamydial infection. N Engl J Med 1996; 334:1362-1366.
8. Ostergaard L, Andersen B, Moller JK, Olesen F. Home sampling versus conventional swab sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis in women: a cluster-randomized 1-year follow-up study. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31:951-957.
9. Low N. Evaluating novel interventions for chlamydia screening. Sex Transm Infect 2006; 82:97-98.
10. Low N, Harbord RM, Egger M, et al. Screening for chlamydia. Lancet 2005; 365:1539.
11. Low N. Current status of chlamydia screening in Europe. Eurosurveillance 2004; 8:5.
12. Miller WC. Screening for chlamydial infection: are we doing enough? Lancet 2005; 365:456-458.
13. Andersen B, Olesen F, Moller JK, Ostergaard L. Population-based strategies for outreach screening of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: a randomized, controlled trial. J Infect Dis 2002; 185:252-258.
14. Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J, et al. The chlamydia screening studies: rationale and design. Sex Transm Infect 2004; 80:342-348.
15. Macleod J, Salisbury C, Low N, et al. Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study. BMJ 2005; 330:940. •• An extensive and comprehensive report of the main findings of the ClaSS project in the UK. This is a study on systematic postal screening of CT, including nearly 20 000 participants.
16. van Bergen J, Gotz HM, Richardus JH, et al. Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanisation and suggests targeted screening approaches: results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81:17-23. •• This paper describes the main results of the PILOT C. trachomatis project in the Netherlands, together with the ClaSS project - the other recent large-scale study in Europe of systematic postal screening of C. trachomatis. The two studies are complementary, due to variations in the methods used and results obtained.
17. Gotz HM, van Bergen JEAM, Veldhuijzen IK, et al. Lessons learned from a population-based chlamydia screening pilot. Int J STD AIDS (in press).
18. Gotz HM, Hoebe CJ, Van Bergen JE, et al. Management of Chlamydia cases and their partners: results from a home-based screening program organized by municipal public health services with referral to regular healthcare. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32:625-629.
19. Low N, McCarthy A, Roberts TE, et al. Partner notification of chlamydia infection in primary care: randomised controlled trial and analysis of resource use. BMJ 2006; 332:14-19. • This paper describes a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of practice-based partner notification by trained nurses.
20. Mills N, Daker-White G, Graham A, Campbell R. Population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the UK: a qualitative study of the experiences of those screened. Fam Pract 2006; 23:550-557.
21. Campbell R, Mills N, Sanford E, et al. Does population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis raise anxiety among those tested? Findings from a population based chlamydia screening study. BMC Public Health 2006; 6:106.
22. Gotz HM, Veldhuijzen IK, van Bergen JE, et al. Acceptability and consequences of screening for chlamydia trachomatis by home-based urine testing. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32:557-562.
23. Marrazzo JM, Fine D, Celum CL, et al. Selective screening for chlamydial infection in women: a comparison of three sets of criteria. Fam Plann Perspect 1997; 29:158-162.
24. Miller WC, Hoffman IF, Owen-O'Dowd J, et al. Selective screening for chlamydial infection: which criteria to use? Am J Prev Med 2000; 18:115-122.
25. Andersen B, van Valkengoed I, Olesen F, et al. Value of self-reportable screening criteria to identify asymptomatic individuals in the general population for urogential Chlamydia trachomatis infection screening. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36:837-844.
26. van Valkengoed IG, Morre SA, van den Brule AJ, et al. Low diagnostic accuracy of selective screening criteria for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infections in the general population. Sex Transm Infect 2000; 76:375-380.
27. Gotz HM, van Bergen JE, Veldhuijzen IK, et al. A prediction rule for selective screening of Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81:24-30. •• This innovative study applies the methodology of prediction rules, increasingly used in clinical decision making, to a public health intervention. It is a promising new approach to support risk selection in chlamydia screening strategies.
28. Gotz HM, Veldhuijzen IK, Habbema JD, et al. Prediction of Chlamydia trachomatis infection: application of a scoring rule to other populations. Sex Transm Dis 2006; 33:374-380. •• This paper provides external validation of a prediction rule for risk of chlamydia infection and thereby strengthens its potential application for selective C. trachomatis screening.
29. Ford CA, Viadro CI, Miller WC. Testing for chlamydial and gonorrheal infections outside of clinic settings: a summary of the literature. Sex Transm Dis 2004; 31:38-51.
30. Novak DP, Karlsson RB. Simplifying chlamydia testing: an innovative Chlamydia trachomatis testing approach using the Internet and a home sampling strategy: population based study. Sex Transm Infect 2006; 82:142-147. • This paper is the first to describe the application of the Internet in support of population-based C. trachomatis testing.
31. Gaydos CA, Dwyer K, Barnes M, et al. Internet-based screening for Chlamydia trachomatis to reach nonclinic populations with mailed self-administered vaginal swabs. Sex Transm Dis 2006; 33:451-457. • This paper shows that a group of high-risk women are accessed through the Internet for C. trachomatis testing who have not been reached via traditional healthcare.
32. Gotz HM, Veldhuijzen IK, Ossewaarde JM, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis infections in multiethnic urban youth: a pilot combining STI health education and outreach testing in Rotterdam, Netherlands. Sex Transm Infect 2006; 82:148-152; discussion 152-153. • This paper shows that outreach testing in school and group settings is highly efficient in comparison with street settings.
33. Asbel LE, Newbern EC, Salmon M, et al. School-based screening for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae among Philadelphia public high school students. Sex Transm Dis 2006; 33:614-620. • This paper describes the results of an extensive school-based screening program for C. trachomatis among high-school students in the USA.
34. Joesoef MR, Mosure DJ. Prevalence of chlamydia in young men in the United States from newly implemented universal screening in a national job training program. Sex Transm Dis 2006; 33:636-639.
35. Joesoef MR, Mosure DJ. Prevalence trends in chlamydial infections among young women entering the national job training program, 1998-2004. Sex Transm Dis 2006; 33:571-575.
36. Roberts TE, Robinson S, Barton P, et al. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling. Sex Transm Infect 2006; 82:193-200. • A timely and exhaustive review of economic evaluations and modelling of C. trachomatis screening.
37. Welte R, Postma M, Leidl R, Kretzschmar M. Costs and effects of chlamydial screening: dynamic versus static modeling. Sex Transm Dis 2005;32:474-483. • This paper clearly shows the need for dynamic modelling in the evaluation of C. trachomatis screening.
38. Andersen B, Gundgaard J, Kretzschmar M, et al. Prediction of costs, effectiveness, and disease control of a population-based program using home sampling for diagnosis of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections. Sex Transm Dis 2006; 33:407-415. • Application of a dynamic model for the assessment of a home sampling screening approach for C. trachomatis in Denmark.
39. de Vries R, van Bergen JE, de Jong-van den Berg LT, Postma MJ. Systematic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: estimating cost-effectiveness using dynamic modeling and Dutch data. Value Health 2006; 9:1-11. • Evaluation of systematic screening for C. trachomatis by means of dynamic modelling using data from the PILOT C. trachomatis study in the Netherlands.
40. Salisbury C, Macleod J, Egger M, et al. Opportunistic and systematic screening for chlamydia: a study of consultations by young adults in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2006; 56:99-103.