Literature DB >> 27623210

Screening for genital chlamydia infection.

Nicola Low1, Shelagh Redmond, Anneli Uusküla, Jan van Bergen, Helen Ward, Berit Andersen, Hannelore Götz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Genital infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis are the most prevalent bacterial sexually transmitted infection worldwide. Screening of sexually active young adults to detect and treat asymptomatic infections might reduce chlamydia transmission and prevent reproductive tract morbidity, particularly pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in women, which can cause tubal infertility and ectopic pregnancy.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and safety of chlamydia screening versus standard care on chlamydia transmission and infection complications in pregnant and non-pregnant women and in men. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, DARE, PsycINFO and Web of Science electronic databases up to 14 February 2016, together with World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also handsearched conference proceedings, contacted trial authors and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult women (non-pregnant and pregnant) and men comparing a chlamydia screening intervention with usual care and reporting on a primary outcome (C. trachomatis prevalence, PID in women, epididymitis in men or incidence of preterm delivery). We included non-randomised controlled clinical trials if there were no RCTs for a primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or adjudication by a third reviewer. We described results in forest plots and conducted meta-analysis where appropriate using a fixed-effect model to estimate risk ratios (RR with 95% confidence intervals, CI) in intervention vs control groups. We conducted a pre-specified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome, PID incidence, according to the risks of selection and detection bias. MAIN
RESULTS: We included six trials involving 359,078 adult women and men. One trial was at low risk of bias in all six specific domains assessed. Two trials examined the effect of multiple rounds of chlamydia screening on C. trachomatis transmission. A cluster-controlled trial in women and men in the general population in the Netherlands found no change in chlamydia test positivity after three yearly invitations (intervention 4.1% vs control 4.3%, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09, 1 trial, 317,304 participants at first screening invitation, low quality evidence). Uptake of the intervention was low (maximum 16%). A cluster-randomised trial in female sex workers in Peru found a reduction in chlamydia prevalence after four years (adjusted RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.98, 1 trial, 4465 participants, low quality evidence).Four RCTs examined the effect of chlamydia screening on PID in women 12 months after a single screening offer. In analysis of four trials according to the intention-to-treat principle, the risk of PID was lower in women in intervention than control groups, with little evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94, I2 7%, 4 trials, 21,686 participants, moderate quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis, the estimated effect of chlamydia screening in two RCTs at low risk of detection bias (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.17) was compatible with no effect and was lower than in two RCTs at high or unclear risk of detection bias (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.83).The risk of epididymitis in men invited for screening, 12 months after a single screening offer, was 20% lower risk for epididymitis than in those not invited; the confidence interval was wide and compatible with no effect (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.42, 1 trial, 14,980 participants, very low quality evidence).We found no RCTs of the effects of chlamydia screening in pregnancy and no trials that measured the harms of chlamydia screening. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence about the effects of screening on C. trachomatis transmission is of low quality because of directness and risk of bias. There is moderate quality evidence that detection and treatment of chlamydia infection can reduce the risk of PID in women at individual level. There is an absence of RCT evidence about the effects of chlamydia screening in pregnancy.Future RCTs of chlamydia screening interventions should determine the effects of chlamydia screening in pregnancy, of repeated rounds of screening on the incidence of chlamydia-associated PID and chlamydia reinfection in general and high risk populations.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 27623210      PMCID: PMC6457643          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010866.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  89 in total

Review 1.  Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review.

Authors:  O C Ukoumunne; M C Gulliford; S Chinn; J A Sterne; P G Burney
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Screening positive urine pregnancy tests for sexually transmitted diseases expedites the treatment of infected adolescent gravidas.

Authors:  C Stevens-Simon; M Rudnick; R K Beach; A Weinberg
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2002-06

3.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Population-based strategies for outreach screening of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: a randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Berit Andersen; Frede Olesen; Jens K Møller; Lars Østergaard
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2002-01-03       Impact factor: 5.226

5.  Effect of a clinical practice improvement intervention on Chlamydial screening among adolescent girls.

Authors:  Mary-Ann B Shafer; Kathleen P Tebb; Robert H Pantell; Charles J Wibbelsman; John M Neuhaus; Ann C Tipton; Sharon Brown Kunin; Timothy H Ko; David M Schweppe; David A Bergman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-12-11       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Repeated school-based screening for sexually transmitted diseases: a feasible strategy for reaching adolescents.

Authors:  D A Cohen; M Nsuami; D H Martin; T A Farley
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 7.  From epidemiological synergy to public health policy and practice: the contribution of other sexually transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection.

Authors:  D T Fleming; J N Wasserheit
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.519

8.  Home sampling versus conventional swab sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis in women: a cluster-randomized 1-year follow-up study.

Authors:  L Ostergaard; B Andersen; J K Møller; F Olesen
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2000-10-25       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Vaginal clindamycin in preventing preterm birth and peripartal infections in asymptomatic women with bacterial vaginosis: a randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  M Kekki; T Kurki; J Pelkonen; M Kurkinen-Räty; B Cacciatore; J Paavonen
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  The value of mass screening for chlamydia control in high prevalence communities.

Authors:  S Hodgins; R W Peeling; S Dery; F Bernier; A LaBrecque; J F Proulx; J Joly; M Alary; D Mabey
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.519

View more
  24 in total

Review 1.  Developing a Public Health Response to Mycoplasma genitalium.

Authors:  Matthew R Golden; Kimberly A Workowski; Gail Bolan
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2017-07-15       Impact factor: 5.226

2.  Screening for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea.

Authors:  Jeanne Marrazzo; Jodie Dionne-Odom
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 157.335

3.  Rapid point of care test for detecting urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in nonpregnant women and men at reproductive age.

Authors:  Carlos F Grillo-Ardila; Marcela Torres; Hernando G Gaitán
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-01-29

4.  A national strategic plan for reducing the burden of sexually transmitted infections in Israel by the year 2025.

Authors:  Daniel Chemtob; Dan Gandacu; Zohar Mor; Itamar Grotto; Emilia Anis; Elliot Rosenberg
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2017-04-19

Review 5.  Comparison of the population excess fraction of Chlamydia trachomatis infection on pelvic inflammatory disease at 12-months in the presence and absence of chlamydia testing and treatment: Systematic review and retrospective cohort analysis.

Authors:  Bethan Davies; Katy M E Turner; Stella Leung; B Nancy Yu; Maria Frølund; Thomas Benfield; James Blanchard; Henrik Westh; Helen Ward
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Modelling the impact of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhoea in youth and other high-prevalence groups in a resource-limited setting.

Authors:  Rachel T Esra; Leigh F Johnson
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 3.380

7.  Discrepancies between observed data and predictions from mathematical modelling of the impact of screening interventions on Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence.

Authors:  Joost Smid; Christian L Althaus; Nicola Low
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Interventions during pregnancy to prevent preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.

Authors:  Nancy Medley; Joshua P Vogel; Angharad Care; Zarko Alfirevic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-11-14

9.  Changes in chlamydia prevalence and duration of infection estimated from testing and diagnosis rates in England: a model-based analysis using surveillance data, 2000-15.

Authors:  Joanna Lewis; Peter J White
Journal:  Lancet Public Health       Date:  2018-06

10.  The Impact of Screening and Partner Notification on Chlamydia Prevalence and Numbers of Infections Averted in the United States, 2000-2015: Evaluation of Epidemiologic Trends Using a Pair-Formation Transmission Model.

Authors:  Minttu M Rönn; Ashleigh R Tuite; Nicolas A Menzies; Emory E Wolf; Thomas L Gift; Harrell W Chesson; Elizabeth Torrone; Andrés Berruti; Emanuele Mazzola; Kara Galer; Katherine Hsu; Joshua A Salomon
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 4.897

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.