CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS (CT) IS THE MOST common bacterial sexually transmitted infection and is usually asymptomatic. In women, Ct infections are a major cause of pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, infertility, and chronic abdominal pain.1 2 3–5 6
Effectiveness of any screening program is determined by adequate treatment of participants found Ct positive, as well as successful partner notification and treatment.7 8
Reports on management of cases usually come from chlamydia screening programs where invitation for screening and management of cases is carried out by regular health care services, e.g., general practices,9,10 11–14
We performed a large population-based Ct-screening study (CT PILOT), organized by Municipal Public Health Services (MHS) in the Netherlands, with referral of cases to regular health care. Ct prevalence and predictors for chlamydia, as well as the results of an acceptability study, were reported earlier.15–17
Methods
The current study is based on data from the CT PILOT project, which was designed to investigate prevalence of Ct infections in rural and urban areas in the Netherlands, and the feasibility of home-based screening organized by MHS with referral of cases to regular health care. Local general practitioners (GPs) and STD clinics were informed about the Ct screening program and their expected role. The study was implemented from September 2002 through March 2003 in 4 MHS areas, representing various degrees of urbanization.15
Laboratory results were transferred to the MHS concerned, where the results were linked to personal data and the participants informed by mail. Chlamydia-positive participants received information by mail about the infection and the need of treatment and partner notification and were asked to consult the regular medical services. In anticipation of waiting time problems, arrangements were made with alternative STD services to give preference to chlamydia-positive participants.
Participants could choose either their GP or the alternative available in their region (3 regions, MHS clinic; 1 region, STD clinic). An explanatory letter for the health care provider was included about the screening program and management of chlamydia infection (antibiotic choice, testing for confirmation in case of doubts about the diagnosis, and further STD examination if indicated).
Recommended treatment regimen of first choice was azithromycin 1 g stat., second choice doxycycline 2dd 100 mg for 7 days; in case of pregnancy amoxicillin 3dd 500 mg for 7 days. A test of cure is currently not advised in the Netherlands.18
The letter referred to index treatment and notification of partners of the previous 6 months, with emphasis on the preference of direct treatment of the current partner by the GP/STD clinic through partner-delivered treatment. If the index patient’s physician did not provide a prescription for the current partner, the index was to be encouraged to notify the current and preferably also possible ex-partners during the previous 6 months. Assistance by the MHS nurses was offered. These instructions are in line with current practice guidelines in the Netherlands. Testing of partners before treatment was not obligatory, but a partner test kit was offered by the project. Alternatively, testing could be performed at a local laboratory. A return slip for the treating physician was included to obtain feedback on the management of cases, discussion of partner notification, and number of eligible and treated partners. On this evaluation form, GPs could request payment of a private consultation fee (22 Euro). When no feedback was received after 4 weeks, index cases received a reminder telephone call or a letter in order to obtain missing information. Outcome evaluation was performed within 2 months after sending the result. Index and partner management information was linked anonymously to the CT PILOT database.
The index treatment rate was defined as the percentage of chlamydia cases with confirmation of antibiotic treatment as reported by the health care provider or the index patient. Determinants of confirmed treatment were investigated. Adequacy of antibiotic choice was assessed. Distribution of choices of health care was determined, as well as the period between mailing the result and consultation date (delay period), where consultation date was assumed to be treatment date.
Successful partner management rate was defined as the percentage of partners out of all partners elicited during counseling with confirmed treatment (patient-delivered treatment) or adequate management after testing. Potential treatment was defined as advice given to patients to refer their partners to their GP.
To distinguish between treatments of various partners, the treatment rate was calculated for all partners of the previous 6 months, stratified for the first partner and other partners. The number of partners during the previous 6 months as reported in the questionnaire and thus eligible for partner notification was compared with the number of elicited partners during counseling.
Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed using the SPSS package version 10.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). The χ2 statistic was used to compare proportions. Statistical significance was considered to be P <0.05.
Results
Management of Ct-Positive Participants (Index Cases)
Treatment Rate.
Of the 8339 participants in the CT PILOT whose urine was examined, 165 (2.0%) were chlamydia positive (43 men and 122 women).15 P = 0.03). No difference was found between Ct positives with confirmed treatment and those without follow-up information according to urbanization, age, sex, education, reporting symptoms, reported history of STI, recent partner change, and number of lifetime sexual partners.
Choice of Health Care.
A majority of 82% (123 cases) consulted their GP, varying by region from 74% to 90% (P = 0.49), as opposed to 18% (27 cases) who consulted an alternative STD clinic. No significant differences in preference of treatment location were found by age, sex, ethnicity, or urbanization.
Treatment Delay.
Among 143 infected participants with known consultation date, the median delay period was 7 days (range 1–65 days). There was no difference in delay between GPs and alternative treatment facilities. Eighty-seven cases (61%) sought treatment within 1 week, 34 cases (24%) in the second week, and 8 cases (5%) within 3 to 4 weeks. Finally, 14 cases (10%) were treated more than 1 month after the result (Fig. 1 ). In 7 of these 14 cases, additional information was available: 1 person visited the GP after 41 days without having received a reminder; 2 initially had not received the result due to change of address and consulted a GP after being reminded; 4 only consulted a physician after having received a reminder.
Fig. 1: Period between sending result to Ct-positive participants and consultation with health care provider (delay period).
Prescription.
Of all 150 confirmed treated cases, 128 (85%) received treatment of first choice; 20 (13.3%) treatment of second choice; and in 2 cases (1.3%), the antibiotic prescribed was unknown. Concluding, at least 148 (99%) of the treated cases received adequate prescription. A total of 107 out of 123 consulted GPs (87%) sent a return slip to the MHS. In the remaining cases, feedback was actively sought for from the index case.
Management of Partners
Elicited Partners.
For 147 of the 150 treated index cases (98%), information was available with regard to partner management. All health care workers reported to have discussed partner notification. A total of 113 index cases (77%) reported 1 partner in the previous 6 months, 25 (17%) reported 2 or more partners, and in 3 cases the number of partners was unknown. With 6 index cases reporting no partners in the previous 6 months, 141 index cases remained where partner notification was indicated, with 176 partners eligible for partner notification and treatment (Table 1 ). Per index case, the mean number of partners in the previous 6 months was 1.25 (women 1.21; men 1.35).
TABLE 1: Number of Index Patients and Corresponding Partners Eligible for Partner Notification (PN)
Partner Treatment.
A total of 86 partners were treated successfully, with a mean number of partners per index case of 0.6 (86/141). Successful partner management rate was 49% (86/176). In addition, 16% (28) of all 176 partners were potentially treated (partner notification) (Table 2 ). Concerning the first (current) partners of 141 index cases, 57% (81) were treated successfully (61% [65] current partners of 107 female index cases versus 47% [16] of 34 male index cases) (P = 0.16). Eighteen percent (25/141) of current partners were treated potentially. The treatment rate of partners other than the first partners was 14% (5/35). Successful partner management rate seemed lower in index patients with recent partner change compared to those without recent partner change (40% [25/63] versus 54% [55/102]; P = 0.08).
TABLE 2: Partner Management According to Current Versus Other Partners by Sex and Recent Partner Change
Usually, treatment for the partners was provided during the first consultation, before or without Ct-testing. The physician waited for laboratory results in 10 out of 176 eligible partners (6%) before providing treatment. Only 15 diagnostic kits provided by the MHS were used, of which 6 (40%) were Ct positive. Direct treatment of at least 1 partner was done by GPs in 52% (60) of the index cases, while MHS/STD clinics treated current partners in 81% (21) of the index cases (P = 0.02) (Table 3 ). The offer of assistance by MHS nurses was not taken up by any of the GPs.
TABLE 3: Treatment Rates for Current Partners According to STD Care
Partner Reporting.
Partner notification starts with the process of eliciting partners during counseling. In 139 cases where the necessary information was available, we could compare the number of partners reported in the return slip with the number reported in the original questionnaire. Nine index patients (6.4%) mentioned more partners in the previous 6 months during counseling than in the questionnaire. Those participants might have a new partner recently. In 27 index patients (20%), fewer partners were elicited during counseling than they had reported in the anonymous questionnaire. Twenty-two of these (81%) reported 1 partner during counseling, contrary to the 2 to 5 partners mentioned in the questionnaire.
Discussion
Index Case Management
Our rate of confirmed index treatment was 91%, which is comparable to earlier findings from opportunistic19,20 21 21 15
The majority of cases with confirmed treatment (85%) were treated within 2 weeks. However, 10% were treated only after 1 month. Reports from follow-up of Ct-positive clinic attendees are comparable.22
The MHS had facilitated management of cases by providing information for physicians. The quality of choice of treatment was very good; 99% of the treated patients received adequate treatment. Focus on the medication of first choice is important, as compliance in asymptomatic patients is expected to be better with the short treatment course.
We received feedback from 87% of the GPs. This result was probably influenced positively by introducing an incentive (payment of consultation). The majority (83%) of our index cases sought treatment with their own GP, reflecting the important role of GPs as providers of sexual health care. In our acceptability study, among a selection of participants at this home-based screening we found that 82% preferred to be invited by MHSs for regular testing.17
Partner Management
Treatment of current partners in order to avoid reinfections is crucial in STD control. For this reason, it was stressed in this project that physicians should give a prescription for index and current partner. Although all treating physicians indicated that partner notification was discussed, we wanted to distinguish confirmed treatment from advice for partner referral. The overall successful partner management rate was 49%, but direct treatment for at least 1 partner was given in 57% of all cases. Although this could mean that 43% of current partners were not treated, we know that 18% of first partners were referred to their own GP through patient referral resulting in a potential treatment of at least 1 partner in 75% of index cases.
A limitation of this study is that we do not have data about current versus ex-partners. We assume that if 1 partner was treated, this will most likely be the current partner. As reported partners in the previous 6 months may be ex-partners as well, reflecting less current partners, the actual treatment rate of current partners could be slightly higher. The results of our partner treatment are comparable to earlier screening studies in the Netherlands. In the opportunistic screening program in Amsterdam, where GPs screened and treated their own patients, at least 1 partner was managed adequately in 61% of the index patients.19 23 20
At STD/MHS clinics, relatively more partners were treated directly. GPs might restrict direct partner treatment to those who are actually within their practice. Encouraging direct partner treatment of current partners during GP consultation deserves more attention. Treating partners by patient delivered therapy has been feasible and beneficial.24–27 12,23,28–30
Partner testing was not required, as we did not want to change regular practice. Partner testing by patient-delivered test kit could be potentially helpful in finding new index cases among multiple partners.31 32 29,33 34,35
Conclusion
A systematic home-based Ct screening organized by MHS with referral of infected participants to curative care can achieve high treatment rates. Without a reminder, the treatment rate would have been lower, particularly in non-Dutch risk groups. Information given to GPs and STD clinics led to adequate case management. In case of a large-scale screening program, training for GPs concerning counseling of unexpected STD results and partner notification appears necessary.
Given our treatment rate of current partners, it is to be expected that reinfections will occur. We recommend expansion of the practice of patient-delivered treatment for the current partner.
References
1. Stamm W.
Chlamydia trachomatis . In: Holmes KK, Sparling PF, Mardh PA, Lemon SM, Stamm WE, Piot P, Wasserheit JN (eds.) Sexually Transmitted Diseases. McGraw-Hill, 1999. pp 407–422.
2. Golden MR, Schillinger JA, Markowitz L, St Louis ME. Duration of untreated genital infections with
Chlamydia trachomatis : a review of the literature. Sex Transm Dis 2000; 27:329–337.
3. Andersen B, Ostergaard L, Moller JK, Olesen F. Home sampling versus conventional contact tracing for detecting
Chlamydia trachomatis infection in male partners of infected women: randomised study. BMJ 1998; 316:350–351.
4. Morre SA, van Valkengoed IG, de Jong A, et al. Mailed, home-obtained urine specimens: a reliable screening approach for detecting asymptomatic
Chlamydia trachomatis infections. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37:976–980.
5. Morre SA, Van Valkengoed IG, Moes RM, Boeke AJ, Meijer CJ, Van den Brule AJ. Determination of
Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence in an asymptomatic screening population: performances of the LCx and COBAS Amplicor tests with urine specimens. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37:3092–3096.
6. Martin DH, Mroczkowski TF, Dalu ZA, et al. A controlled trial of a single dose of azithromycin for the treatment of chlamydial urethritis and cervicitis: the Azithromycin for Chlamydial Infections Study Group. N Engl J Med 1992; 327:921–925.
7. Rietmeijer CA, Van Bemmelen R, Judson FN, Douglas JM Jr. Incidence and repeat infection rates of
Chlamydia trachomatis among male and female patients in an STD clinic: implications for screening and rescreening. Sex Transm Dis 2002; 29:65–72.
8. Kretzschmar M. Mathematical epidemiology of
Chlamydia trachomatis infections. Neth J Med 2002; 60(7 suppl):35–41.
9. Andersen B, Ostergaard L, Nygard B, Olesen F. Urogenital
Chlamydia trachomatis infections in general practice: diagnosis, treatment, follow-up and contact tracing. Fam Pract 1998; 15:223–228.
10. McCree DH, Liddon NC, Hogben M, St Lawrence JS. National survey of doctors’ actions following the diagnosis of a bacterial STD. Sex Transm Infect 2003; 79:254–256.
11. Siddiqui F, Kirkman RJ, Chandiok S. Re-audit of referral compliance of chlamydia-positive women from a family planning clinic. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2004; 30:86–87.
12. White C, Wardropper AG. Chlamydia in a district general hospital: an audit of treatment and contact tracing. Int J STD AIDS 1999; 10:57–59.
13. Wilkinson C, Massil H, Evans J. An interface of chlamydia testing by community family planning clinics and referral to hospital genitourinary medicine clinics. Br J Fam Plann 2000; 26:206–209.
14. Willmott F, Tolcher R. Audit of outcome following positive chlamydial test results in family planning clinics in Southampton. Int J STD AIDS 2000; 11:756–758.
15. van Bergen JEAM, Gotz HM, Richardus JH, Hoebe CJPA, Broer J, Coenen AJ. 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. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81:17–23.
16. Gotz HM, van Bergen JEAM, Veldhuijzen IK, Broer J, Hoebe CJPA, Richardus JH. A prediction rule for selective screening of
Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81:24–30.
17. Gotz HM, Veldhuijzen IK, van Bergen JE, Hoebe C, de Zwart O, Richardus JH. Acceptability and consequences of screening for
Chlamydia trachomatis by home based urine testing. Sex Trans Dis 2005; 32:557–562.
18. Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Herpes Neonatorum, Guidelines [in Dutch]. Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement CBO, 2002.
19. van den Hoek JA, Mulder-Folkerts DK, Coutinho RA, Dukers NH, Buimer M, van Doornum GJ. [Opportunistic screening for genital infections with
Chlamydia trachomatis among the sexually active population of Amsterdam: over 90% participation and almost 5% prevalence]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1999; 143:668–672.
20. Pimenta JM, Catchpole M, Rogers PA, et al. Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection, II: prevalence among healthcare attenders, outcome, and evaluation of positive cases. Sex Transm Infect 2003; 79:22–27.
21. van Valkengoed IG, Morre SA, van den Brule AJ, et al. Follow-up, treatment, and reinfection rates among asymptomatic
Chlamydia trachomatis cases in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2002; 52:623–627.
22. Katz BP, Danos CS, Quinn TS, Caine V, Jones RB. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of field follow-up for patients with
Chlamydia trachomatis infection in a sexually transmitted diseases clinic. Sex Transm Dis 1988; 15:11–16.
23. van Valkengoed IG, Morre SA, van den Brule AJ, et al. Partner notification among asymptomatic
Chlamydia trachomatis cases, by means of mailed specimens. Br J Gen Pract 2002; 52:652–654.
24. Kissinger P, Brown R, Reed K, et al. Effectiveness of patient delivered partner medication for preventing recurrent
Chlamydia trachomatis . Sex Transm Infect 1998; 74:331–333.
25. Golden MR, Whittington WL, Handsfield HH, et al. Partner management for gonococcal and chlamydial infection: expansion of public health services to the private sector and expedited sex partner treatment through a partnership with commercial pharmacies. Sex Transm Dis 2001; 28:658–665.
26. Klausner JD, Chaw JK. Patient-delivered therapy for chlamydia: putting research into practice. Sex Transm Dis 2003; 30:509–511.
27. Schillinger JA, Kissinger P, Calvet H, et al. Patient-delivered partner treatment with azithromycin to prevent repeated
Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women: a randomized, controlled trial. Sex Transm Dis 2003; 30:49–56.
28. Dodd A, Comber DL, Hernon M. Chlamydia: inside out. Int J STD AIDS 2002; 13:406–410.
29. Oh MK, Boker JR, Genuardi FJ, Cloud GA, Reynolds J, Hodgens JB. Sexual contact tracing outcome in adolescent chlamydial and gonococcal cervicitis cases. J Adolesc Health 1996; 18:4–9.
30. van de Laar MJ, Termorshuizen F, van den Hoek A. Partner referral by patients with gonorrhea and chlamydial infection: case-finding observations. Sex Transm Dis 1997; 24:334–342.
31. Ostergaard L, Andersen B, Moller JK, Olesen F, Worm AM. Managing partners of people diagnosed with
Chlamydia trachomatis : a comparison of two partner testing methods. Sex Transm Infect 2003; 79:358–361.
32. Ashton MR, Cook RL, Wiesenfeld HC, et al. Primary care physician attitudes regarding sexually transmitted diseases. Sex Transm Dis 2002; 29:246–251.
33. Warszawski J, Meyer L. Sex difference in partner notification: results from three population based surveys in France. Sex Transm Infect 2002; 78:45–49.
34. Macke BA, Maher JE. Partner notification in the United States: an evidence-based review. Am J Prev Med 1999; 17:230–242.
35. Mathews C, Coetzee N, Zwarenstein M, et al. A systematic review of strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. Int J STD AIDS 2002; 13:285–300.
