» Articles » PMID: 29776798

Changes in Chlamydia Prevalence and Duration of Infection Estimated from Testing and Diagnosis Rates in England: a Model-based Analysis Using Surveillance Data, 2000-15

Overview
Specialty Public Health
Date 2018 May 20
PMID 29776798
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Chlamydia screening programmes have been implemented in several countries, but the effects of screening on incidence, prevalence, and reproductive sequelae remain unclear. In England, despite increases in testing with the rollout of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP; 2003-08), prevalence estimated in 10-yearly population-based surveys was similar before (1999-2001) and after (2010-12) the programme. However, the precision of these previous estimates was limited by the low numbers of infections. We aimed to establish annual, rather than 10-yearly, estimates of chlamydia prevalence and infection duration.

Methods: In this model-based analysis, we used previously published minimum and maximum estimates and Public Health England data for chlamydia test coverage and diagnoses in men and women aged 15-24 years in England, before, during, and after the scale-up of national chlamydia screening. We used a mechanistic model, which accounted for symptomatic chlamydia testing and asymptomatic screening, to estimate changes in prevalence and average duration of infections for each year. We describe estimates derived from the maximum and minimum numbers of tests and diagnoses as maximum and minimum estimates, regardless of their relative magnitude.

Findings: The data included numbers of tests and diagnoses in men and women aged 15-19 years and 20-24 years in England each year from 2000 to 2015. We estimated reductions in prevalence and average infection duration in both sexes once screening was fully implemented. From 2008 to 2010, estimated posterior median prevalence reductions in people aged 15-24 years were 0·68 percentage points (95% credible interval 0·26-1·40; minimum) and 0·66 percentage points (0·25-1·37; maximum) for men and 0·77 percentage points (0·45-1·27) for women (minimum and maximum estimates were the same for women). Over the same time period, mean duration of infection reduced by 75 days (95% credible interval 17-255; minimum) and 74 days (95% credible interval 17-247; maximum) in men and 30 days (22-40) in women. Since 2010, some of the progress made by the NCSP has been reversed, alongside a reduction in testing.

Interpretation: Our analysis provides the first evidence for a reduction in chlamydia prevalence in England concurrent with large-scale population testing. It also shows a consistent decline in the average duration of infections, which is a measure of screening effectiveness that is unaffected by behavioural changes.

Funding: National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council.

Citing Articles

Using infection prevalence, seroprevalence and case report data to estimate chlamydial infection incidence.

Clay P, Pollock E, Copen C, Anyalechi E, Danavall D, Hong J Sex Transm Infect. 2023; 99(8):513-519.

PMID: 37648446 PMC: 11323310. DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2023-055808.


Chlamydia-related knowledge, opinion to opportunistic testing, and practices of providers among different sexually transmitted infections related departments in hospitals in Shenzhen city, China.

Weng R, Zhang C, Wen L, Luo Y, Ye J, Wang H BMC Health Serv Res. 2022; 22(1):601.

PMID: 35509056 PMC: 9067339. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08012-3.


Controversies and evidence on Chlamydia testing and treatment in asymptomatic women and men who have sex with men: a narrative review.

Dukers-Muijrers N, Evers Y, Hoebe C, Wolffs P, de Vries H, Hoenderboom B BMC Infect Dis. 2022; 22(1):255.

PMID: 35287617 PMC: 8922931. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-022-07171-2.


Per-partnership transmission probabilities for Chlamydia trachomatis infection: evidence synthesis of population-based survey data.

Lewis J, White P, Price M Int J Epidemiol. 2020; 50(2):510-517.

PMID: 33349846 PMC: 8128448. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyaa202.


Infectious Disease and Primary Care Research-What English General Practitioners Say They Need.

Lecky D, Granier S, Allison R, Verlander N, Collin S, McNulty C Antibiotics (Basel). 2020; 9(5).

PMID: 32443700 PMC: 7277096. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics9050265.


References
1.
Tobin J, Harindra V, Tucker L . The future of chlamydia screening. Sex Transm Infect. 2000; 76(4):233-4. PMC: 1744188. DOI: 10.1136/sti.76.4.233. View

2.
Unemo M, Bradshaw C, Hocking J, de Vries H, Francis S, Mabey D . Sexually transmitted infections: challenges ahead. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017; 17(8):e235-e279. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30310-9. View

3.
Low N, Redmond S, Uuskula A, van Bergen J, Ward H, Andersen B . Screening for genital chlamydia infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 9:CD010866. PMC: 6457643. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010866.pub2. View

4.
Davies B, Anderson S, Turner K, Ward H . How robust are the natural history parameters used in chlamydia transmission dynamic models? A systematic review. Theor Biol Med Model. 2014; 11:8. PMC: 3922653. DOI: 10.1186/1742-4682-11-8. View

5.
Datta S, Torrone E, Kruszon-Moran D, Berman S, Johnson R, Satterwhite C . Chlamydia trachomatis trends in the United States among persons 14 to 39 years of age, 1999-2008. Sex Transm Dis. 2012; 39(2):92-6. DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31823e2ff7. View