Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanisation and suggests targeted screening approaches: results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands
J van Bergen, H M Götz, J H Richardus, C J P A Hoebe, J Broer, A J T Coenen, PILOT CT study group, J van Bergen, H M Götz, J H Richardus, C J P A Hoebe, J Broer, A J T Coenen, PILOT CT study group
Abstract
Objectives: Chlamydia trachomatis (Chlamydia) is the most prevalent sexually transmitted bacterial infection and can cause considerable reproductive morbidity in women. Chlamydia screening programmes have been considered but policy recommendations are hampered by the lack of population based data. This paper describes the prevalence of Chlamydia in 15-29 year old women and men in rural and urban areas, as determined through systematic population based screening organised by the Municipal Public Health Services (MHS), and discusses the implications of this screening strategy for routine implementation.
Methods: Stratified national probability survey according to "area address density" (AAD). 21 000 randomly selected women and men in four regions, aged 15-29 years received a home sampling kit. Urine samples were returned by mail and tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Treatment was via the general practitioner, STI clinic, or MHS clinic.
Results: 41% (8383) responded by sending in urine and questionnaire. 11% (2227) returned a refusal card. Non-responders included both higher and lower risk categories. Chlamydia prevalence was significantly lower in rural areas (0.6%, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.1) compared with very highly urbanised areas (3.2%, 95% CI 2.4 to 4.0). Overall prevalence was 2.0% (95% CI 1.7 to 2.3): 2.5% (95% CI 2.0 to 3.0%) in women and 1.5% (95% CI 1.1 to 1.8) in men. Of all cases 91% were treated. Infection was associated with degree of urbanisation, ethnicity, number of sex partners, and symptoms.
Conclusion: This large, population based study found very low prevalence in rural populations, suggesting that nationwide systematic screening is not indicated in the Netherlands and that targeted approaches are a better option. Further analysis of risk profiles will contribute to determine how selective screening can be done.
References
- Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1999 Mar 27;143(13):672-6
- Sex Transm Infect. 2005 Feb;81(1):24-30
- Sex Transm Infect. 1999 Feb;75(1):3-17
- J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Apr;38(4):1679-80
- Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Oct;31(4):951-7
- BMJ. 2001 Jan 27;322(7280):195-9
- J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Jun;39(6):2375-6
- Sex Transm Infect. 2001 Aug;77(4):276-82
- J Infect Dis. 2002 Jan 15;185(2):252-8
- Sex Transm Infect. 2002 Feb;78(1):74-5
- Int J STD AIDS. 2002 Apr;13(4):254-60
- Lancet. 2002 Mar 9;359(9309):881-4
- BMJ. 2002 Jul 13;325(7355):78-80
- Hum Reprod Update. 2002 Jul-Aug;8(4):385-94
- Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Oct;31(5):891-3
- Sex Transm Infect. 2002 Dec;78(6):396-7
- Sex Transm Infect. 2002 Dec;78(6):406-12
- Sex Transm Dis. 2003 Feb;30(2):120-3
- Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Feb;79(1):3-4
- Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Feb;79(1):4-6
- Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Feb;79(1):22-7
- Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Aug;79(4):313-7
- BMJ. 2003 Aug 30;327(7413):498-500
- Fam Plann Perspect. 1995 May-Jun;27(3):108-11
- N Engl J Med. 1996 May 23;334(21):1362-6
- BMJ. 1996 Nov 9;313(7066):1160-1
- Immunol Invest. 1997 Jan-Feb;26(1-2):157-61
- Genitourin Med. 1997 Apr;73(2):96-8
- Sex Transm Dis. 1998 Apr;25(4):201-10
- BMJ. 1998 May 16;316(7143):1474
- BMJ. 1998 Jun 13;316(7147):1776-80
- Lancet. 1998;351 Suppl 3:25-8
- Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1999 Mar 27;143(13):668-72
- Br Med Bull. 1998;54(4):891-902
Source: PubMed