Search

Objectives: It has been suggested that treatment of STIs with azithromycin may facilitate development of azithromycin resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) by exposing the organism to suboptimal doses. We investigated whether treatment history for non-rectal Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), non-gonococcal urethritis (NGU) or NG (proxies for azithromycin exposure) in sexual health (GUM) services was associated with susceptibility of NG to azithromycin.Methods: Azithromycin susceptibility data from the Gonococcal Resistance to Antimicrobials Surveillance Programme (GRASP 2013-2015, n=4606) and additional high-level azithromycin-resistant isolates (HL-AziR) identified by the Public Health England reference laboratory (2013-2016, n=54) were matched to electronic patient records in the national GUMCAD STI surveillance dataset (2012-2016). Descriptive and regression analyses were conducted to examine associations between history of previous CT/NGU/NG and subsequent susceptibility of NG to azithromycin.Results: Modal azithromycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was 0.25 mg/L (one dilution below the resistance breakpoint) in those with and without history of previous CT/NGU/NG (previous 1 month/6 months). There were no differences in MIC distribution by history of CT/NGU (P=0.98) or NG (P=0.85) in the previous 1 month/6 months or in the odds of having an elevated azithromycin MIC (>0.25 mg/L) (Adjusted OR for CT/NGU 0.97 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.25); adjusted OR for NG 0.82 (95% CI: 0.65 to 1.04)) compared with those with no CT/NGU/NG in the previous 6 months. Among patients with HL-AziR NG, 3 (4%) were treated for CT/NGU and 2 (3%) for NG in the previous 6 months, compared with 6% and 8%, respectively for all GRASP patients.Conclusions: We found no evidence of an association between previous treatment for CT/NGU or NG in GUM services and subsequent presentation with an azithromycin-resistant strain. As many CT diagnoses occur in non-GUM settings, further research is needed to determine whether azithromycin-resistant NG is associated with azithromycin exposure in other settings and for other conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Chlamydia trachomatis is the most commonly diagnosed bacterial STI. Lack of prevalence and risk factor data for rectal chlamydia in women has testing and treatment implications, as azithromycin (a first-line urogenital chlamydia treatment) may be less effective for rectal chlamydia. We conducted a systematic review of studies on women in high-income countries to estimate rectal chlamydia prevalence, concurrency with urogenital chlamydia and associations with reported anal intercourse (AI).Design: Systematic review and four meta-analyses conducted using random-effects modelling.Data Sources: Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database were searched for articles published between January 1997 and October 2017.Eligibility Criteria: Studies reporting rectal chlamydia positivity in heterosexual women aged ≥15 years old in high-income countries were included. Studies must have used nucleic acid amplification tests and reported both the total number of women tested for rectal chlamydia and the number of rectal chlamydia infections detected. Conference abstracts, case reports and studies with self-reported diagnoses were excluded. Data extracted included setting, rectal and urogenital chlamydia testing results, AI history, and demographics.Results: Fourteen eligible studies were identified, all among diverse populations attending sexual health services. Among routine clinic-attending women, summary rectal chlamydia positivity was 6.0% (95% CI 3.2% to 8.9%); summary concurrent rectal chlamydia infection was 68.1% in those who tested positive for urogenital chlamydia (95% CI 56.6% to 79.6%); and of those who tested negative for urogenital chlamydia, 2.2% (95% CI 0% to 5.2%) were positive for rectal chlamydia. Reported AI was not associated with rectal chlamydia (summary risk ratio 0.90; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10).Conclusions: High levels of rectal chlamydia infection have been shown in women with urogenital chlamydia infection. The absence of association between reported AI and rectal chlamydia suggests AI is not an adequate indicator for rectal testing. Further work is needed to determine policy and practice for routine rectal testing in women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current evidence suggests that chlamydia screening programmes can be cost-effective, conditional on assumptions within mathematical models. We explored differences in cost estimates used in published economic evaluations of chlamydia screening from seven countries (four papers each from UK and the Netherlands, two each from Sweden and Australia, and one each from Ireland, Canada and Denmark).Methods: From these studies, we extracted management cost estimates for seven major chlamydia sequelae. In order to compare the influence of different sequelae considered in each paper and their corresponding management costs on the total cost per case of untreated chlamydia, we applied reported unit sequelae management costs considered in each paper to a set of untreated infection to sequela progression probabilities. All costs were adjusted to 2013/2014 Great British Pound (GBP) values.Results: Sequelae management costs ranged from £171 to £3635 (pelvic inflammatory disease); £953 to £3615 (ectopic pregnancy); £546 to £6752 (tubal factor infertility); £159 to £3341 (chronic pelvic pain); £22 to £1008 (epididymitis); £11 to £1459 (neonatal conjunctivitis) and £433 to £3992 (neonatal pneumonia). Total cost of sequelae per case of untreated chlamydia ranged from £37 to £412.Conclusions: There was substantial variation in cost per case of chlamydia sequelae used in published chlamydia screening economic evaluations, which likely arose from different assumptions about disease management pathways and the country perspectives taken. In light of this, when interpreting these studies, the reader should be satisfied that the cost estimates used sufficiently reflect the perspective taken and current disease management for their respective context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We evaluate the utility of the National Surveys of Attitudes and Sexual Lifestyles (Natsal) undertaken in 2000 and 2010, before and after the introduction of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme, as an evidence source for estimating the change in prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) in England, Scotland and Wales. Both the 2000 and 2010 surveys tested urine samples for CT by Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs). We examined the sources of uncertainty in estimates of CT prevalence change, including sample size and adjustments for test sensitivity and specificity, survey non-response and informative non-response. In 2000, the unadjusted CT prevalence was 4.22% in women aged 18-24 years; in 2010, CT prevalence was 3.92%, a non-significant absolute difference of 0.30 percentage points (95% credible interval -2.8 to 2.0). In addition to uncertainty due to small sample size, estimates were sensitive to specificity, survey non-response or informative non-response, such that plausible changes in any one of these would be enough to either reverse or double any likely change in prevalence. Alternative ways of monitoring changes in CT incidence and prevalence over time are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]