Systematic screening with information and home sampling for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in young men and women in Norway: a randomized controlled trial

Hilde Kløvstad, Olav Natås, Aage Tverdal, Preben Aavitsland, Hilde Kløvstad, Olav Natås, Aage Tverdal, Preben Aavitsland

Abstract

Background: As most genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections are asymptomatic, many patients do not seek health care for testing. Infections remain undiagnosed and untreated. We studied whether screening with information and home sampling resulted in more young people getting tested, diagnosed and treated for chlamydia in the three months following the intervention compared to the current strategy of testing in the health care system.

Method: We conducted a population based randomized controlled trial among all persons aged 18-25 years in one Norwegian county (41 519 persons). 10 000 persons (intervention) received an invitation by mail with chlamydia information and a mail-back urine sampling kit. 31 519 persons received no intervention and continued with usual care (control). All samples from both groups were analysed in the same laboratory. Information on treatment was obtained from the Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD). We estimated risk ratios and risk differences of being tested, diagnosed and treated in the intervention group compared to the control group.

Results: In the intervention group 16.5% got tested and in the control group 3.4%, risk ratio 4.9 (95% CI 4.5-5.2). The intervention led to 2.6 (95% CI 2.0-3.4) times as many individuals being diagnosed and 2.5 (95% CI 1.9-3.4) times as many individuals receiving treatment for chlamydia compared to no intervention in the three months following the intervention.

Conclusion: In Norway, systematic screening with information and home sampling results in more young people being tested, diagnosed and treated for chlamydia in the three months following the intervention than the current strategy of testing in the health care system. However, the study has not established that the intervention will reduce the chlamydia prevalence or the risk of complications from chlamydia.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00283127.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of randomized trial of home sampling as an intervention to test, diagnose and treat persons aged 18–25 years for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection, Rogaland county, Norway 2006.

References

    1. Scholes D, Stergachis A, Heidrich FE, Andrilla H, Holmes KK, Stamm WE. Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical chlamydial infection. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1362–1366. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199605233342103.
    1. Westrom L, Joesoef R, Reynolds G, Hagdu A, Thompson SE. Pelvic inflammatory disease and fertility. A cohort study of 1,844 women with laparoscopically verified disease and 657 control women with normal laparoscopic results. Sex Transm Dis. 1992;19:185–192. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199207000-00001.
    1. Buchan H, Vessey M, Goldacre M, Fairweather J. Morbidity following pelvic inflammatory disease. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;100:558–562. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb15308.x.
    1. Wasserheit JN. Epidemiological synergy. Interrelationships between human immunodeficiency virus infection and other sexually transmitted diseases. Sex Transm Dis. 1992;19:61–77.
    1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Annual Epidemiological Report on Communicable Diseases in Europe 2010. Stockholm: ECDC; 2011.
    1. Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Genitale klamydiainfeksjoner i Norge 2011. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Institute of Public Health; 2012.
    1. Klovstad H, Aavitsland P. Chlamydia trachomatis infections in Norway, 1986 to 2006, surveillance data. Sex Transm Dis. 2009;36:17–21. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31818653b0.
    1. Screening for chlamydial infection. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:128–134.
    1. CDC Grand Rounds. Chlamydia Prevention: Challenges and Strategies for Reducing Disease Burden and Sequale. MMWR. 2011;60:370–373.
    1. Low N, Bender N, Nartey L, Shang A, Stephenson JM. Effectiveness of chlamydia screening: systematic review. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38:435–448.
    1. Aavitsland P, Lystad A. Indikasjoner for testing for seksuelt overførbare infeksjoner med Chlamydia trachomatis. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1995;115:3141–3144.
    1. Cecil JA, Howell MR, Tawes JJ, Gaydos JC, McKee KT Jr, Quinn TC. et al.Features of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection in male Army recruits. J Infect Dis. 2001;184:1216–1219. doi: 10.1086/323662.
    1. Watson EJ, Templeton A, Russell I, Paavonen J, Mardh PA, Stary A. et al.The accuracy and efficacy of screening tests for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review. J Med Microbiol. 2002;51:1021–1031.
    1. Low N. Screening programmes for chlamydial infection: when will we ever learn? BMJ. 2007;334:725–728. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Van Der PB, Ferrero DV, Buck-Barrington L, Hook E III, Lenderman C, Quinn T. et al.Multicenter evaluation of the BDProbeTec ET System for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in urine specimens, female endocervical swabs, and male urethral swabs. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39:1008–1016. doi: 10.1128/JCM.39.3.1008-1016.2001.
    1. Van Dyck E, Ieven M, Pattyn S, Van Damme L, Laga M. Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae by enzyme immunoassay, culture, and three nucleic acid amplification tests. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39:1751–1756. doi: 10.1128/JCM.39.5.1751-1756.2001.
    1. Angles M, Angles DM, Refseth UH, Espelund M, Moi H, Storvold G, Jeansson S. A new automated method for isolation of Chlamydia trachomatis from urine eliminates inhibition and increases robustness for NAAT systems. J Microbiol Methods. 2007;70:416–423. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2007.05.017.
    1. Skatteetaten. Generelt om folkeregistrering. 2008. .
    1. Aavitsland P. Use of laboratory testing for genital chlamydial infection in Norway. Qual Health Care. 1993;2:91–5. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2.2.91.
    1. Aavitsland P, Schoyen R. Use and yield of microbiological diagnosis of sexually transmitted Chlamydia trachomatis infections in Vestfold 1984–93. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1995;115:3125–7.
    1. Andersen B, Olesen F, Moller JK, Ostergaard L. Population-based strategies for outreach screening of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: a randomized, controlled trial. J Infect Dis. 2002;185:252–8. doi: 10.1086/338268.
    1. van Bergen J, Gotz H, Richardus JH, Hoebe C, Broer J, Coenen T. Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in the Netherlands suggests selective screening approaches. Results from the PILOT CT Population Study. Drugs Today (Barc) 2006;42(Suppl A):25–33.
    1. van Bergen JE, Fennema JS, van den Broek IV, Brouwers EE, de Feijter EM, Hoebe CJ. et al.Rationale, design, and results of the first screening round of a comprehensive, register-based. Chlamydia screening implementation programme in the Netherlands. BMC Infect Dis. 2010;10:293.
    1. Macleod J, Salisbury C, Low N, McCarthy A, Sterne JA, Holloway A. et al.Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005;330:940. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38413.663137.8F.
    1. Scholes D, Heidrich FE, Yarbro P, Lindenbaum JE, Marrazzo JM. Population-Based Outreach for Chlamydia Screening in Men: Results from a Randomized Trial. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34:837–839. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31805ba860.
    1. Gotz HM, van Bergen JE, Veldhuijzen IK, Hoebe CJ, Broer J, Coenen AJ. et al.Lessons learned from a population-based chlamydia screening pilot. Int J STD AIDS. 2006;17:826–30. doi: 10.1258/095646206779307577.
    1. Lippman SA, Jones HE, Luppi CG, Pinho AA, Veras MA, van de Wijgert JH. Home-based self-sampling and self-testing for sexually transmitted infections: acceptable and feasible alternatives to provider-based screening in low-income women in Sao Paulo. Brazil. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34:421–8.
    1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Review of chlamydia control activities in EU countries. Technical report. Project SCREen. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Stockholm: Sweden; 2008.
    1. Bakken IJ, Nordbo SA, Skjeldestad FE. Chlamydia trachomatis testing patterns and prevalence of genital chlamydial infection among young men and women in central Norway 1990–2003: a population-based registry study. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33:26–30. doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000187929.36118.d2.
    1. Graseck AS, Shih SL, Peipert JF. Home versus clinic-based specimen collection for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2011;9:183–94. doi: 10.1586/eri.10.164.
    1. Novak DP, Karlsson RB. Simplifying chlamydia testing: an innovative Chlamydia trachomatis testing approach using the internet and a home sampling strategy: population based study. Sex Transm Infect. 2006;82:142–7. doi: 10.1136/sti.2005.016832.
    1. Bakken IJ, Skjeldestad FE, Nordbo SA. Testing pattern and prevalence of Chlamydia infections among men. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2005;125:1634–6.
    1. Bakken IJ, Nordbo SA, Skjeldestad FE. Testing pattern and prevalence of Chlamydia infection among women] Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2005;125:1631–3.
    1. Bakken IJ, Skjeldestad FE, Halvorsen TF, Thomassen T, Storvold G, Nordbo SA. Chlamydia trachomatis Among Young Norwegian Men: Sexual Behavior and Genitourinary Symptoms. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34:245–249. doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000233737.48630.03.
    1. Scholes D, Grothaus L, McClure J, Reid R, Fishman P, Sisk C. et al.A randomized trial of strategies to increase chlamydia screening in young women. Prev Med. 2006;43:343–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.04.019.
    1. Shafer MA, Tebb KP, Pantell RH, Wibbelsman CJ, Neuhaus JM, Tipton AC. et al.Effect of a clinical practice improvement intervention on Chlamydial screening among adolescent girls. JAMA. 2002;288:2846–52. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.22.2846.
    1. van den Broek IV, van Bergen JE, Brouwers EE, Fennema JS, Gotz HM, Hoebe CJ. et al.Effectiveness of yearly, register based screening for chlamydia in the Netherlands: controlled trial with randomised stepped wedge implementation. BMJ. 2012;345:e4316. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4316.
    1. Andersen B, Gundgaard J, Kretzschmar M, Olsen J, Welte R, Oster-Gaard L. Prediction of costs, effectiveness, and disease control of a population-based program using home sampling for diagnosis of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis Infections. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33:407–15. doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000200609.77577.3f.
    1. Schmid B, Over E, van den Broek I, Op de Coul E, van Bergen J, CSI Group . Chlamydia screening implementation is not cost effective. Quebec, Canada: Poster. ISSTDR Conference; 2011.
    1. Ostergaard L, Andersen B, Moller JK, Olesen F. Home sampling versus conventional swab sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis in women: a cluster-randomized 1-year follow-up study. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31:951–7. doi: 10.1086/318139.
    1. Andersen B, Van V,I, Sokolowski I, Moller JK, Ostergaard L, Olesen F. Impact of intensified testing for urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: a randomised study with 9-year follow-up. Sex Transm Infect. 2011;87:156–61. doi: 10.1136/sti.2010.042192.
    1. Oakeshott P, Kerry S, Aghaizu A, Atherton H, Hay S, Taylor-Robinson D. et al.Randomised controlled trial of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease: the POPI (prevention of pelvic infection) trial. BMJ. 2010;340:c1642. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1642.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren