Background We evaluated the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy, and infertility in women with a previous Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) diagnosis compared with women who tested negative for CT and CT untested women, considering both targeted and incidental (ie, prescribed for another indication) use of CT-effective antibiotics. Methods This was a retrospective study of women aged 12–25 years at start of follow-up within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database linked to index of multiple deprivation quintiles, 2000–2013. CT test status and antibiotic use were determined in a time-dependent manner. Risk of PID, ectopic pregnancy, or female infertility were evaluated using of Cox proportional hazard models. Results We studied 857 324 women, contributing 6 457 060 person-years. Compared with women who tested CT-negative, women who tested CT-positive had an increased risk of PID (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.01–2.79), ectopic pregnancy (aHR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.38–2.54), and infertility (aHR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.27–2.68). The PID risk was higher for women with 2 or more positive CT tests than those with 1 positive test. PID risk increased with the number of previous antibiotic prescriptions, regardless of CT test status. Conclusions We showed an association between CT-positive tests and 3 adverse reproductive health outcomes. Moreover, this risk increased with repeat CT infections. CT-effective antibiotic use showed no decreased risks of subsequent PID regardless of CT history. Our results confirm the reproductive health burden of CT, which requires adequate public health interventions.

ObjectivesA better understanding of Chlamydia trachomatis infection (chlamydia)–related sequelae can provide a framework for effective chlamydia control strategies. The objective of this study was to estimate risks and risk factors of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy and tubal factor infertility (TFI) with a follow-up time of up until 8 years in women previously tested for chlamydia in the Chlamydia Screening Implementation study (CSI) and participating in the Netherlands Chlamydia Cohort Study (NECCST).MethodsWomen who participated in the CSI 2008–2011 (n=13 498) were invited in 2015–2016 for NECCST. Chlamydia positive was defined as a positive CSI-PCR test, positive chlamydia serology and/or self-reported infection (time dependent). Data on PID, ectopic pregnancy and TFI were collected by self-completed questionnaires. Incidence rates and HRs were compared between chlamydia-positive and chlamydia-negative women corrected for confounders.ResultsOf 5704 women included, 29.5% (95% CI 28.3 to 30.7) were chlamydia positive. The incidence rate of PID was 1.8 per 1000 person-years (py) (1.6 to 2.2) overall, 4.4 per 1000 py (3.3 to 5.7) among chlamydia positives compared with 1.4 per 1000 py (1.1 to 1.7) for chlamydia negatives. For TFI, this was 0.4 per 1000 py (0.3 to 0.5) overall, 1.3 per 1000 py (0.8 to 2.1) and 0.2 per 1000 py (0.1 to 0.4) among chlamydia positives and negatives, respectively. And for ectopic pregnancy, this was 0.6 per 1000 py (0.5 to 0.8) overall, 0.8 per 1000 py (0.4 to 1.5) and 0.6 per 1000 py (0.4 to 0.8) for chlamydia negatives. Among chlamydia-positive women, the strongest risk factor for PID was symptomatic versus asymptomatic infection (adjusted HR 2.88, 1.4 to 4.5) and for TFI age <20 versus >24 years at first infection (HR 4.35, 1.1 to 16.8).ConclusionWe found a considerably higher risk for PID and TFI in chlamydia-positive women, but the incidence for ectopic pregnancy was comparable between chlamydia-positive and chlamydia-negative women. Overall, the incidence rates of sequelae remained low.Trial registrationNTR-5597.

Given rising pretreatment HIV drug resistance levels in sub-Saharan Africa, these findings underscore the need for expanded access to second-line ART. VL monitoring can improve the accuracy of failure detection and efficiency of switching practices.

ObjectivesThe clinical and public health relevance of widespread case finding by testing for asymptomatic chlamydia infections is under debate. We wanted to explore future directions for chlamydia control and generate insights that might guide for evidence-based strategies. In particular, we wanted to know the extent to which we should pursue testing for asymptomatic infections at both genital and extragenital sites.MethodsWe synthesised findings from published literature and from discussions among national and international chlamydia experts during an invitational workshop. We described changing perceptions in chlamydia control to inform the development of recommendations for future avenues for chlamydia control in the Netherlands.ResultsDespite implementing a range of interventions to control chlamydia, there is no practice-based evidence that population prevalence can be reduced by screening programmes or widespread opportunistic testing. There is limited evidence about the beneficial effect of testing on pelvic inflammatory disease prevention. The risk of tubal factor infertility resulting from chlamydia infection is low and evidence on the preventable fraction remains uncertain. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment with antibiotics for self-limiting and non-viable infections have contributed to antimicrobial resistance in other pathogens and may affect oral, anal and genital microbiota. These changing insights could affect the outcome of previous cost–effectiveness analysis.ConclusionThe balance between benefits and harms of widespread testing to detect asymptomatic chlamydia infections is changing. The opinion of our expert group deviates from the existing paradigm of ‘test and treat’ and suggests that future strategies should reduce, rather than expand, the role of widespread testing for asymptomatic chlamydia infections.

Background Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) is the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) worldwide. CT is mainly asymptomatic. Test-and-treat strategies are widely implemented to prevent transmission and complications. Strategies are not without controversy in asymptomatic women and men who have sex with men (MSM). Concerns are emerging to test and treat asymptomatic persons for urogenital CT (‘Controversy 1’) and pharyngeal or rectal CT (‘Controversy 2’), whereby testing symptomatic persons is not under debate. Opposed views in CT treatment involve using azithromycin versus doxycycline (‘Controversy 3’). The objective of this review is to provide coverage of these public health and clinical controversies by reviewing the current scientific evidence. Methods A literature search was performed using PubMed for relevant publications between 2018 and September 2021, and iterative retrieval of additional relevant publications. Results Controversy 1. In women, the majority of asymptomatic CT are at the urogenital site, and detections mostly include viable CT. CT easily transmits to a partner and potentially also between the vaginal and rectal areas; the clinical impact of urogenital CT is established, although risks for adverse outcomes are uncertain. Wide-scale testing in asymptomatic women has not resulted in reduced prevalence. In MSM, evidence for the clinical impact of asymptomatic urogenital CT is lacking. Controversy 2. Rectal CT is common in women diagnosed with urogenital CT, but the clinical impact of asymptomatic rectal CT is uncertain. In MSM, rectal CT is common, and most CT infections are at the rectal site, yet the risk of longer term complications is unknown. In both sexes, pharyngeal CT is uncommon and has no documented clinical impact. Controversy 3. In the treatment of rectal CT, doxycycline has superior effectiveness to azithromycin. Evidence has also accumulated on the harms of test-and-treat strategies. Conclusions Current practices vary widely, from widescale test-and-treat approaches to more individual patient- and partner-level case management. Choosing which asymptomatic people to test at what anatomic site, and whether to test or not, requires an urgent (re-)definition of the goals of testing and treating asymptomatic persons. Treatment guidelines are shifting toward universal doxycycline use, and clinical practice now faces the challenge of implementation.