OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the optimal time interval for a repeated Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) test. METHODS: The authors used claims data for US women aged 15-25 years who were enrolled in commercial health insurance plans in the MarketScan database between 2002 and 2006. The authors determined the numbers of initial positive and negative tests that were followed by a repeated test and the positivity of repeated tests. The authors used a dynamic transmission pair model that reflects the partnership formation and separation processes in 15-25 year olds to determine the time course of repeated infections in women under different levels of notifying the current partner. The authors then explored the additional impact of repeated testing uptake on reducing chlamydia prevalence. RESULTS: 40% (4949/12 413) of positive tests were followed by a repeated test compared with 22% (89 119/402 659) of negative tests at any time. Positivity of repeated tests followed by an initial positive test was high: 15% (736) after a positive test versus 3% (2886) after a negative test. The transmission model showed a peak in repeated infections between 2 and 5 months after treatment. For a chlamydia testing uptake of 10% per year, the additional impact of repeated testing on reducing chlamydia population prevalence was modest. CONCLUSIONS: The mathematical model predictions support the recommended interval for repeat chlamydia testing. This study provides information that can be used to design randomised controlled trials to determine more effective interventions to prevent chlamydial reinfection.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the optimal time interval for a repeated Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) test. METHODS: The authors used claims data for US women aged 15-25 years who were enrolled in commercial health insurance plans in the MarketScan database between 2002 and 2006. The authors determined the numbers of initial positive and negative tests that were followed by a repeated test and the positivity of repeated tests. The authors used a dynamic transmission pair model that reflects the partnership formation and separation processes in 15-25 year olds to determine the time course of repeated infections in women under different levels of notifying the current partner. The authors then explored the additional impact of repeated testing uptake on reducing chlamydia prevalence. RESULTS: 40% (4949/12 413) of positive tests were followed by a repeated test compared with 22% (89 119/402 659) of negative tests at any time. Positivity of repeated tests followed by an initial positive test was high: 15% (736) after a positive test versus 3% (2886) after a negative test. The transmission model showed a peak in repeated infections between 2 and 5 months after treatment. For a chlamydia testing uptake of 10% per year, the additional impact of repeated testing on reducing chlamydia population prevalence was modest. CONCLUSIONS: The mathematical model predictions support the recommended interval for repeat chlamydia testing. This study provides information that can be used to design randomised controlled trials to determine more effective interventions to prevent chlamydial reinfection.
Authors: Rachel Sacks-Davis; Emma McBryde; Jason Grebely; Margaret Hellard; Peter Vickerman Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: Maartje Visser; Fleur van Aar; Femke D H Koedijk; Carolina J G Kampman; Janneke C M Heijne Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Janneke C M Heijne; Geneviève A F S van Liere; Christian J P A Hoebe; Johannes A Bogaards; Birgit H B van Benthem; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Jannie J van der Helm; Rik H Koekenbier; Martijn S van Rooijen; Maarten F Schim van der Loeff; Henry J C de Vries Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Daphne A van Wees; Janneke C M Heijne; Titia Heijman; Karlijn C J G Kampman; Karin Westra; Anne de Vries; Mirjam E E Kretzschmar; Chantal den Daas Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 3.090