O1-S09.03 Main results and impact analysis of annual Chlamydia screening in a large register-based programme in the Netherlands

Abstract

S09.02 figure 1 suggests local elimination is likely to occur earlier in Bellary (median: 2023) than in Mysore (2028) and Belgaum (2030), with the required intervention duration being 11e35 years. The discounted cost of achieving local elimination in each of the settings is estimated to be $8-11 000 000 with 5000e11 000 HIV infections averted up to 2050.Abstract O1-S09.02 Figure 1 Posterior distribution of the year when HIV indicates in FSWs and clients goes below 1 infection per 1000 FSWs and clients.Conclusion Our results suggest Avahan could result in local elimination of HIV among FSWs and clients in these districts without ART. Current discussions around the use of ART for HIV elimination should also consider other prevention strategies, especially in concentrated epidemic settings where eliminating HIV from FSWs and clients is likely to eliminate HIV in the general population. Our modest estimated costs for local elimination could be completely offset against averted ART costs.

Opportunistic testing for urogenital infection with Chlamydia trachomatis in south-western Switzerland, 2012: a feasibility study

“…Cohen et al found that overall chlamydia positivity decreased in intervention schools and was lower after five screening rounds (6.7%, 77/1150) than in control schools tested for the first time (9.3%, 247/2653, risk ratio 0.72 (95% CI 0.56, 0.92) Results presented separately by sex showed that the reduction in intervention schools was seen in boys (5.9%, 34/575 in the first round in year 1 and 3.2%, 19/588 in year 3, p=0.028) but not girls (12.1%, 62/513 in the first round in year 1 and 10.3%, 58/562 in year 3, p=0.359). The incidence also decreased in boys (4.5% from round 1-2 and 3.2% from round 4-5) but not girls (7.2% and 11.4%, respectively) [175]. Van den Broek et al found no change in chlamydia positivity in intervention clusters after three screening rounds (4.1%) compared with control clusters at the first screening round (4.3%, risk ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.84, 1.09).…”

“…Second, the order of roll-out of the screening invitations was randomised and third, analysis of the primary outcome, adjusting for baseline differences, was the same as the crude analysis. In the trial by Cohen et al the risk of selection bias was higher [175]. Chlamydia screening was introduced first in three schools (intervention group) and then, after two years, into a further five schools (control group).…”

“…Cohen et al introduced chlamydia screening in selected schools in New Orleans, USA beginning in the school year 1995-96 [175]. In the first three schools, all students in 9th to 12th grades (aged 15-18 years) were invited twice a year for two years.…”

“…Two completed [40,175] and one ongoing [177] trial examine the effect on chlamydia transmission with chlamydia positivity or prevalence as an outcome. There were four individually randomised controlled trials, two cluster randomised controlled trials and two controlled trials with non-random methods of allocation to clusters.…”

“…After applying the inclusion criteria and combining with the results of the original search, there were 12 publications [37,40, 44,45,47,[131][132][133][175][176][177] relating to seven completed or ongoing trials, identified by citation to the primary publication. Of these, three trials were included in the original review [131,132,175] and four were identified in the updated search. Characteristics of the included trials are summarised in Table 14, Appendix 2.…”