Emily R Learner, Elizabeth A Torrone1, Jason P Fine2, Brian W Pence, Kimberly A Powers, William C Miller3. 1. Division of STD Prevention, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 3. Division of Epidemiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluating chlamydia prevalence trends from sentinel surveillance is important for understanding population disease burden over time. However, prevalence trend estimates from surveillance data may be misleading if they do not account for changes in risk profiles of individuals who are screened (case mix) and changing performance of the screening tests used. METHODS: We analyzed chlamydia screening data from a sentinel surveillance population of 389,555 young women (1990-2012) and 303,699 young men (2003-2012) entering the US National Job Training Program. This period follows the introduction of national chlamydia screening programs designed to prevent transmission and reduce population disease burden. After ruling out bias due to case mix, we used an expectation-maximization-based maximum likelihood approach to account for measurement error from changing screening tests, and generated minimally biased long-term chlamydia prevalence trend estimates among youth and young adults in this sentinel surveillance population. RESULTS: Adjusted chlamydia prevalence among women was high throughout the study period, but fell from 20% in 1990 to 12% in 2003, and remained between 12% and 14% through 2012. Adjusted prevalence among men was steady throughout the study period at approximately 7%. For both women and men, adjusted prevalence was highest among Black and American Indian youth and young adults, and in the Southern and Midwestern regions of the United States throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Our minimally biased trend estimates provide support for an initial decrease in chlamydia prevalence among women soon after the introduction of national chlamydia screening programs. Constant chlamydia prevalence in more recent years suggests that screening may not be sufficient to further reduce chlamydia prevalence among high-risk youth and young adults.
BACKGROUND: Evaluating chlamydia prevalence trends from sentinel surveillance is important for understanding population disease burden over time. However, prevalence trend estimates from surveillance data may be misleading if they do not account for changes in risk profiles of individuals who are screened (case mix) and changing performance of the screening tests used. METHODS: We analyzed chlamydia screening data from a sentinel surveillance population of 389,555 young women (1990-2012) and 303,699 young men (2003-2012) entering the US National Job Training Program. This period follows the introduction of national chlamydia screening programs designed to prevent transmission and reduce population disease burden. After ruling out bias due to case mix, we used an expectation-maximization-based maximum likelihood approach to account for measurement error from changing screening tests, and generated minimally biased long-term chlamydia prevalence trend estimates among youth and young adults in this sentinel surveillance population. RESULTS: Adjusted chlamydia prevalence among women was high throughout the study period, but fell from 20% in 1990 to 12% in 2003, and remained between 12% and 14% through 2012. Adjusted prevalence among men was steady throughout the study period at approximately 7%. For both women and men, adjusted prevalence was highest among Black and American Indian youth and young adults, and in the Southern and Midwestern regions of the United States throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Our minimally biased trend estimates provide support for an initial decrease in chlamydia prevalence among women soon after the introduction of national chlamydia screening programs. Constant chlamydia prevalence in more recent years suggests that screening may not be sufficient to further reduce chlamydia prevalence among high-risk youth and young adults.
Authors: John S Santelli; Laura Duberstein Lindberg; Lawrence B Finer; Susheela Singh Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-11-30 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Elizabeth A Torrone; Robert E Johnson; Lin H Tian; John R Papp; S Deblina Datta; Hillard S Weinstock Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: William C Miller; Carol A Ford; Martina Morris; Mark S Handcock; John L Schmitz; Marcia M Hobbs; Myron S Cohen; Kathleen Mullan Harris; J Richard Udry Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-05-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M Jacques Nsuami; Musheni Nsa; Christine Brennan; Catherine L Cammarata; David H Martin; Stephanie N Taylor Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Emily R Learner; Kristen Kreisel; Robert D Kirkcaldy; Karen Schlanger; Elizabeth A Torrone Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Kanupriya Gupta; Sally A Harrison; Nkele A Davis; Matilda L Culp; Samuel C Hand; Tina Simpson; Barbara Van Der Pol; James W Galbraith; Nicholas J Van Wagoner; Sandra G Morrison; Richard P Morrison; William M Geisler Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Jill Diesel; Kristen Kreisel; Emily R Learner; Elizabeth Torrone; Thomas Peterman Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Minttu M Rönn; Nicolas A Menzies; Thomas L Gift; Harrell W Chesson; Tom A Trikalinos; Meghan Bellerose; Yelena Malyuta; Andrés Berruti; Charlotte A Gaydos; Katherine K Hsu; Joshua A Salomon Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 9.079