Antibiotic consumption and chlamydia prevalence in international studies
Samitha Ginige A B , Marcus Y. Chen A C , Jane S. Hocking C , Tim R. H. Read A and Christopher K. Fairley A C DA Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, 580 Swanston St, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia.
B Ministry of Health No. 385, Rev. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10, Sri Lanka.
C School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: cfairley@unimelb.edu.au
Sexual Health 3(4) 221-224 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH06013
Submitted: 14 February 2006 Accepted: 11 May 2006 Published: 17 November 2006
Abstract
Background: To determine whether there is an ecological association between antibiotic use and chlamydia prevalence. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken of international studies on chlamydia prevalence among women aged 15–25 years published between 2000 and 2005. Preference was given to studies using nucleic acid testing and representative population-based sampling methods. Data were obtained on per capita antibiotic consumption according to the defined daily dose. Results: For the 12 countries for which both antibiotic consumption and relevant prevalence data for chlamydia were available, a non-significant negative correlation was found between total antibiotic consumption per capita and chlamydia prevalence among younger women according to country (rs = –0.242, P = 0.449). When an outlier (from the Netherlands) was excluded, the correlation was significant (rs = –0.615, P = 0.044). Combined use of tetracyclines and macrolides was also associated with lower chlamydia prevalence (rs = –0.697, P = 0.017). Conclusions: It is possible that antibiotics used for other reasons may have unexpectedly reduced the prevalence of chlamydia.
[1] Brunham RC, Pourbohloul B, Mak S, et al. The unexpected impact of a Chlamydia trachomatis infection control program on susceptibility to reinfection. J Infect Dis 2005; 192 1836–44.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | [verified November 2006].
[6]
[7] Patrick DM, Marra F, Hutchinson J, et al. Per capita antibiotic consumption: How does a North American jurisdiction compare with Europe? Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39 11–7.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[8] Nyari T, Woodward M, Kovacs L. Should all sexually active young women in Hungary be screened for Chlamydia trachomatis? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003; 106 55–9.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[9] Andersen B, Olesen F, Moller JK, et al. Population-based strategies for outreach screening of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: A randomized, controlled trial. J Infect Dis 2002; 185 252–8.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[10] Macleod J, Salisbury C, Low N, 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; 330 940–2.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Sylvan SPE, Krogh GV, Tiveljung A, et al. Screening and genotyping of genital Chlamydia trachomatis in urine specimens from male and female clients of youth-health centers in Stockholm county. Sex Transm Dis 2002; 29 379–86.
| PubMed |
[12] Verhoeven V, Avonts D, Meheus A, et al. Chlamydia infection: an accurate model for opportunistic screening in general practice. Sex Transm Infect 2003; 79 313–7.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[13] Brito de Sa A, Gomes PJ, Viegas S, et al. Genital infection by Chlamydia trachomatis in Lisbon: prevalence and risk markers. Fam Pract 2002; 19 362–4.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[14] Paukku M, Kilpikari R, Puolakkainen M, et al. Criteria for selective screening for Chlamydia trachomatis. Sex Transm Dis 2003; 30 120–3.
| PubMed |
[15] Bakken IJ, Brat H, Skjeldestad FE, et al. Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in urine, vulval and cervical swabs. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2005; 125 1629–30.
| PubMed |
[16] Klavs I, Rodrigues LC, Wellings K, et al. Prevalence of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the general population of Slovenia: serious gaps in control. Sex Transm Infect 2004; 80 121–3.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[17]
[18] Orfila J, Mention JE, Sueur JM, et al. Systematic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis with the molecular biological AMP-CT test in urine samples from young women. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2002; 31 555–7.
| PubMed |
[19] van Bergen J, Gotz HM, Richardus JH, et al. Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanization and suggests targeted screening approaches: results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81 17–23.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[20]
[21] Turner CF, Rogers SM, Miller HG, et al. Untreated gonococcal and chlamydial infection in a probability sample of adults. JAMA 2002; 287 726–33.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[22] Fairley CK, Hocking J, Gunn J, Chen MY. No barriers to chlamydia testing in sexually active young women. Med J Aust 2005; 183 548–9.
| PubMed |
[23] Low N, Egger M. What should we do about screening for genital chlamydia? Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31 891–3.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[24] Miller WC. Screening for chlamydial infection: are we doing enough? Lancet 2005; 365 456–8.
| PubMed |
[25] Turnidge J. Antibiotic use or misuse? MJA 1997; 167 116–7.
| PubMed |
