Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis in a public colposcopy clinic population
Rodney W. Petersen A B D , Sepehr N. Tabrizi A C , Suzanne Garland A C and Julie A. Quinlivan BA Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic. 3054, Australia.
B Sydney School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame Australia, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia.
C Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Royal Women’s Hospital, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: rpetersen@nd.edu.au
Sexual Health 4(2) 133-136 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH06050
Submitted: 25 August 2006 Accepted: 10 March 2007 Published: 23 May 2007
Abstract
Background: Chlamydia trachomatis is a major public health issue, with notifications of this sexually transmitted disease continuing to rise in Australia. Women attending colposcopy clinics are referred for treatment of cervical abnormalities often associated with human papilloma virus (HPV) infection. There is evidence that women who have acquired one sexually transmitted infection, such as HPV, are at higher risk of acquiring another. Women attending colposcopy clinics may therefore be at risk of undiagnosed infection with C. trachomatis. Aim: To determine the prevalence of C. trachomatis in women attending a public metropolitan colposcopy clinic in Victoria. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed. Institutional ethics committee approval and informed consent were obtained. Consecutive women attending the colposcopy clinic completed a questionnaire and had a swab collected from the endocervix for analysis by polymerase chain reaction for C. trachomatis. Positive screens were treated in accordance with best practice. Data were analysed with Minitab Version 2004 (Minitab Inc, State College, PA, USA). Results: Of 581 women approached to participate in the trial, consent was obtained from 568 women (98%) and final outcome data was available on 560 women (99%). The overall rate of chlamydial infection was 2.1% (95% CI 1.5–2.7%). However, in women aged 25 years or less the rate was 5.8% (95% CI 3.8–7.8%) and in women over 25 years it was only 0.9% (95% CI 0.4–1.4%). Apart from age, no other demographic factor was significantly associated with chlamydial infection. Conclusion: Although the prevalence of chlamydial infection in the colposcopy clinic population as a whole does not warrant a policy for routine screening, screening directed at women aged 25 years or less would gain the greatest yields in terms of cost efficacy. Such a policy should be implemented as standard practice.
Additional keywords: human papilloma virus, Pap smear, screening.
Acknowledgements
Funding support: Early Careers Research Grant, The University of Melbourne awarded to Dr R. W. Petersen.
[1]
[2]
[3] Counahan ML, Hocking JS, Fairley CK. Enhanced chlamydia surveillance indicates more screening needed. Med J Aust 2003; 178 523.
[4] Quinlivan JA, Petersen RW, Gurrin LC. High prevalence of Chlamydia and Pap smear abnormalities in pregnant adolescent women warrants routine screening. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 38 254–7.
| PubMed |
[5] Marrazzo JM, Celum CL, Hillis SD, Fine D, De Lisle S, Handsfield HH. Performance and cost-effectiveness of selective screening criteria for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women: implications for a national chlamydia control strategy. Sex Transm Dis 1997; 24 131–41.
| PubMed |
[6] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993 Sexually transmitted diseases guidelines. MMWR Recomm Rep 1993; 42 1–102.
[7] Gilson RJC, Mindel A. Sexually transmitted infections. BMJ 2001; 322 1160–4.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[8] Tayal SC, Robertson A, Doxford L. An audit of Chlamydia trachomatis in colposcopy – Hartlepool experience. Int J STD AIDS 2005; 16 500–1.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[9] Ward B, Rodger AJ, Jackson TJ. Modelling the impact of opportunistic screening on the sequelae and public healthcare costs of infection with Chlamydial trachomatis in Australian women. Public Health 2006; 120 42–9.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[10] Welte R, Postma M, Leidl R, Kretzschmar M. Costs and effects of chlamydial screening: dynamic versus static modeling. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32 474–83.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[11] Peeling RW, Toye B, Jessamine P, Gemmill I. Pooling of urine specimens for PCR testing: a cost saving strategy for Chlamydia trachomatis control programmes. Sex Transm Infect 1998; 74 66–70.
| PubMed |
[12] Norman JE, Wu O, Twaddle S, Macmillan S, McMillan L, Templeton A, et al. An evaluation of economics and acceptability of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection, in women attending antenatal, abortion, colposcopy and family planning clinics in Scotland, UK. BJOG 2004; 111 1261–8.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[13] Macmillan S, McKenzie H, Templeton A. Parallel observation of four methods for screening women under 25 years of age for genital infection with Chlamydia trachomatis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003; 107 68–73.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[14] Pimenta JM, Catchpole M, Rogers PA, Perkins E, Jackson N, Carlisle C, et al. Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. 1: acceptability of urine testing in primary and secondary healthcare settings. Sex Transm Infect 2003; 79 16–21.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[15] Spiliopoulou A, Lakiotis V, Vittoraki A, Zavou D, Mauri D. Chlamydia trachomatis: time for screening? Clin Microbiol Infect 2005; 11 687–9.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
