Emily R Learner1, Kimberly A Powers2, Elizabeth A Torrone1, Brian W Pence2, Jason P Fine3, William C Miller4. 1. From the Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. 2. Departments of Epidemiology. 3. Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 4. Division of Epidemiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: National chlamydia case rate trends are difficult to interpret because of biases from partial screening coverage, imperfect diagnostic tests, and underreporting. We examined the extent to which these time-varying biases could influence reported annual chlamydia case rates. METHODS: Annual reported case rates among women aged 15 through 24 years from 2000 through 2017 were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention AtlasPlus tool. Estimates of reporting completeness, diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity, and screening coverage were derived from literature review and expert opinion. We adjusted annual reported case rates for incomplete reporting, imperfect diagnostic tests, and partial screening coverage through a series of corrections, and calculated annual adjusted case rates of correctly diagnosed chlamydia. RESULTS: Adjusted chlamydia case rates among young women were higher than reported case rates throughout the study period. Reported case rates increased over the study period, but adjusted rates declined from 12,900 to 7900 cases per 100,000 person-years between 2000 and 2007. After 2007, adjusted case rates declined to 7500 cases per 100,000 person-years in 2017. Bias from partial screening coverage had a larger impact on case rate magnitude and trend shape than bias from imperfect diagnostic tests or underreporting. CONCLUSIONS: Reported chlamydia case rates may be substantially lower than true chlamydia case rates because of incomplete reporting, imperfect diagnostic tests, and partial screening coverage. Because the magnitude of these biases has declined over time, the differences between reported and adjusted case rates have narrowed, revealing a sharp decline in adjusted case rates even as reported case rates have risen. The decline in adjusted case rates suggests that the rise in reported case rates should not be interpreted strictly as increasing chlamydia incidence, as the observed rise can be explained by improvements in screening coverage, diagnostic tests, and reporting.
BACKGROUND: National chlamydia case rate trends are difficult to interpret because of biases from partial screening coverage, imperfect diagnostic tests, and underreporting. We examined the extent to which these time-varying biases could influence reported annual chlamydia case rates. METHODS: Annual reported case rates among women aged 15 through 24 years from 2000 through 2017 were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention AtlasPlus tool. Estimates of reporting completeness, diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity, and screening coverage were derived from literature review and expert opinion. We adjusted annual reported case rates for incomplete reporting, imperfect diagnostic tests, and partial screening coverage through a series of corrections, and calculated annual adjusted case rates of correctly diagnosed chlamydia. RESULTS: Adjusted chlamydia case rates among young women were higher than reported case rates throughout the study period. Reported case rates increased over the study period, but adjusted rates declined from 12,900 to 7900 cases per 100,000 person-years between 2000 and 2007. After 2007, adjusted case rates declined to 7500 cases per 100,000 person-years in 2017. Bias from partial screening coverage had a larger impact on case rate magnitude and trend shape than bias from imperfect diagnostic tests or underreporting. CONCLUSIONS: Reported chlamydia case rates may be substantially lower than true chlamydia case rates because of incomplete reporting, imperfect diagnostic tests, and partial screening coverage. Because the magnitude of these biases has declined over time, the differences between reported and adjusted case rates have narrowed, revealing a sharp decline in adjusted case rates even as reported case rates have risen. The decline in adjusted case rates suggests that the rise in reported case rates should not be interpreted strictly as increasing chlamydia incidence, as the observed rise can be explained by improvements in screening coverage, diagnostic tests, and reporting.
Authors: Christine M Khosropour; Jennifer M Broad; Delia Scholes; Jacquelyn Saint-Johnson; Lisa E Manhart; Matthew R Golden Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Matthew R Golden; Roxanne P Kerani; Mark Stenger; James P Hughes; Mark Aubin; Cheryl Malinski; King K Holmes Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 11.069