Chlamydia trachomatis screening in young women

Purpose of review As the number of chlamydia screening programmes implemented worldwide increases, we summarize current understanding of the epidemiology, natural history, and management of chlamydia, focusing on screening in young women. Recent findings Chlamydia diagnoses continue to rise, with young women at high risk. Recently published trials show that the risk of serious reproductive health outcomes is lower than previously thought. They illustrate that significant barriers – both practical and cultural – remain to engaging young people and health professionals in routine testing for sexually transmitted infections. Chlamydia control efforts have driven innovative approaches to testing including new approaches to engaging young people in discussions of sexual health and screening accessed via the Internet. Summary Chlamydia is highly prevalent among young women and may cause serious reproductive sequelae. Gaps in our knowledge of the epidemiology, natural history and immunology of this organism continue to hamper efforts to control it. Sexual health promotion and screening of young people remain the mainstay of population control, although there is as yet no strong evidence of health screening benefits. Control efforts will require new strategies to engage young people and health professionals to normalize sexual health testing.

[1]  J. Hocking,et al.  Telling partners about chlamydia: how acceptable are the new technologies? , 2010, BMC infectious diseases.

[2]  J. Paavonen Chlamydia trachomatis infections of the female genital tract: State of the art , 2012, Annals of medicine.

[3]  L. Patchen,et al.  Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Repeat Infection Among Pregnant Urban Adolescents , 2011, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[4]  R. French,et al.  The English National Chlamydia Screening Programme: Variations in Positivity in 2007/2008 , 2009, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[5]  L. Niccolai,et al.  Behavioural sources of repeat Chlamydia trachomatis infections: importance of different sex partners , 2011, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[6]  N. Perry,et al.  A pilot qualitative analysis of the psychosocial factors which drive young people to decline chlamydia testing in the UK: implications for health promotion and screening , 2010, International journal of STD & AIDS.

[7]  C. Gaydos,et al.  Chlamydia trachomatis Age-Specific Prevalence in Women Who Used an Internet-Based Self-screening Program Compared to Women Who Were Screened in Family Planning Clinics , 2011, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[8]  R. Brugha,et al.  Young women's decisions to accept chlamydia screening: influences of stigma and doctor-patient interactions , 2010, BMC public health.

[9]  Katy Turner,et al.  Costs and cost effectiveness of different strategies for chlamydia screening and partner notification: an economic and mathematical modelling study , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  D. Rockey,et al.  Antibiotic resistance in Chlamydiae. , 2010, Future microbiology.

[11]  Clare Heal,et al.  Australian general practitioner chlamydia testing rates among young people , 2011, The Medical journal of Australia.

[12]  G. Scott,et al.  Expedited partner therapy for Chlamydia trachomatis at the community pharmacy , 2010, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[13]  S. Howie,et al.  Immunity and vaccines against sexually transmitted Chlamydia trachomatis infection , 2011, Current opinion in infectious diseases.

[14]  N. Low,et al.  Risk of sequelae after Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection in women. , 2010, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[15]  S. Hawes,et al.  Pregnancy outcomes in women infected with Chlamydia trachomatis: a population-based cohort study in Washington State , 2007, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[16]  J. Fortenberry,et al.  Repeated Chlamydia trachomatis genital infections in adolescent women. , 2010, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[17]  C. Hoebe,et al.  Acceptability of the Internet-Based Chlamydia Screening Implementation in the Netherlands and Insights Into Nonresponse , 2011, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[18]  F. V. van Tiel,et al.  Alarmingly poor performance in Chlamydia trachomatis point-of-care testing , 2010, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[19]  R. Ness,et al.  Systematic Review: Noninvasive Testing for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae , 2005, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  J. Klausner,et al.  Dogs Are Talking: San Francisco's social marketing campaign to increase syphilis screening. , 2010, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[21]  J. Warszawski,et al.  Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis: results from the first national population-based survey in France , 2010, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[22]  N. Timpson,et al.  Chlamydia trachomatis in the age of the genome: application of molecular genotyping to improve our understanding of the immunopathogenesis of Chlamydia genital tract disease. , 2011, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[23]  G. Thurnau,et al.  The Preterm Prediction Study: association of second-trimester genitourinary chlamydia infection with subsequent spontaneous preterm birth. , 2000, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[24]  R. Braun,et al.  Bridging the gap: using school-based health services to improve chlamydia screening among young women. , 2010, American journal of public health.

[25]  Annette M. Green,et al.  The Incidence and Correlates of Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae Infections in Selected Populations in Five Countries , 2011, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[26]  P. Horner,et al.  The case for further treatment studies of uncomplicated genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection , 2006, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[27]  J. Klausner,et al.  The Effectiveness of Patient-Delivered Partner Therapy and Chlamydial and Gonococcal Reinfection in San Francisco , 2010, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[28]  M. Postma,et al.  Epidemiology of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women and the cost-effectiveness of screening. , 2010, Human reproduction update.

[29]  S. Berman,et al.  Danish health register study: a randomised trial with findings about the implementation of chlamydia screening, but not about its benefits , 2011, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[30]  J. Kaufman,et al.  Screening young adults for prevalent chlamydial infection in community settings. , 2008, Annals of epidemiology.

[31]  R. Brugha,et al.  "Pee-in-a-Pot": acceptability and uptake of on-site chlamydia screening in a student population in the Republic of Ireland , 2010, BMC infectious diseases.

[32]  C. Hoebe,et al.  Rationale, design, and results of the first screening round of a comprehensive, register-based, Chlamydia screening implementation programme in the Netherlands , 2010, BMC infectious diseases.

[33]  Lyle C Gurrin,et al.  Incentive payments to general practitioners aimed at increasing opportunistic testing of young women for chlamydia: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial , 2010, BMC public health.

[34]  T. Darville,et al.  Pathogenesis of genital tract disease due to Chlamydia trachomatis. , 2010, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[35]  S. Kerry,et al.  Randomised controlled trial of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease: the POPI (prevention of pelvic infection) trial , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[36]  Anne M Johnson,et al.  Sexual behaviour in Britain: reported sexually transmitted infections and prevalent genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection , 2001, The Lancet.

[37]  K. Workowski,et al.  Repeat Infection With Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Among Females: A Systematic Review of the Literature , 2009, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[38]  D. Stephens,et al.  Repeat screening for sexually transmitted infection in adolescent obstetric patients. , 2010, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC.

[39]  E. Hennrikus,et al.  Sports preparticipation examination to screen college athletes for Chlamydia trachomatis. , 2010, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[40]  M. Brady,et al.  'Do it yourself' sexual health care: the user experience. , 2011, Sexual Health.

[41]  Helen H. Lee,et al.  New point of care Chlamydia Rapid Test—bridging the gap between diagnosis and treatment: performance evaluation study , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[42]  J. Hocking,et al.  Computer Reminders for Chlamydia Screening in General Practice: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2010, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[43]  S. Kerry,et al.  Community-based trial of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease: the POPI (prevention of pelvic infection) trial , 2008, Trials.

[44]  R. Powell,et al.  Screening university students for genital chlamydial infection: another lesson to learn. , 2010, Sexual Health.

[45]  R. Voelker Experts reconsider wisdom of limiting Chlamydia screening only to women. , 2010, JAMA.

[46]  F. Olesen,et al.  Impact of intensified testing for urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: a randomised study with 9-year follow-up , 2010, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[47]  L. Mckay,et al.  Genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in a subgroup of young men in the UK , 2003, The Lancet.

[48]  P. Baraitser,et al.  Screening and treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis infections , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[49]  C. Mcnulty,et al.  "...they should be offering it": a qualitative study to investigate young peoples' attitudes towards chlamydia screening in GP surgeries , 2010, BMC public health.

[50]  N. Low,et al.  Screening and treatment to prevent sequelae in women with Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection: how much do we know? , 2010, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[51]  W. Geisler Duration of untreated, uncomplicated Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection and factors associated with chlamydia resolution: a review of human studies. , 2010, The Journal of infectious diseases.