Repeat chlamydia screening among adolescents: cohort study in a school-based programme in New Orleans

OBJECTIVES To describe uptake of chlamydia screening, determine rates of repeated yearly screening and investigate determinants of repeated participation in an organised school-based screening programme. METHODS The authors analysed data from 1995 to 2005 from female and male students in up to 13 schools in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. The authors calculated proportions of students tested among all enrolled students and among those with parental consent and the percentage of positive chlamydia tests in each school year. The authors used random effects logistic regression to examine the effect of past screening history on subsequent participation. RESULTS 35 041 students were registered for at least one school year. Overall coverage was >30% in all school years. Among all students registered for 4 years, 10.6% (95% CI 9.3% to 12.0%) of women and 12.7% (95% CI 11.2% to 14.2%) of men had a test every year. Among students with parental consent for 4 years, 49.3% (95% CI 44.6% to 54.1%) of women and 59.3% (95% CI 54.5% to 64.0%) of men had a test every year. Among students registered for 2 or more years, those with a previous positive chlamydia test were less likely to have a subsequent test (female adjusted OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88 and male adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02). Chlamydia positivity increased over time. CONCLUSIONS High levels of uptake can be achieved in school-based chlamydia screening programmes, but repeated yearly screening is difficult to sustain over time.

[New insights into diagnosis and management of gestational diabetes mellitus: recommendations of the Swiss Society for Endocrinology and Diabetes]

Physiology and current knowledge about gestational diabetes which led to the adoption of new diagnostic criterias and blood glucose target levels during pregnancy by the Swiss Society for Endocrinology and Diabetes are reviewed. The 6th International Workshop Conference on Gestational Diabetes mellitus in Pasedena (2008) defined new diagnostic criteria based on the results of the HAPO-Trial. These criteria were during the ADA congress in New Orleans in 2009 presented. According to the new criteria there is no need for screening, but all pregnant women have to be tested with a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test between the 24th and 28th week of pregnancy. The new diagnostic values are very similar to the ones previously adopted by the ADA with the exception that only one out of three values has to be elevated in order to make the diagnosis of gestational diabetes. Due to this important difference it is very likely that gestational diabetes will be diagnosed more frequently in the future. The diagnostic criteria are: Fasting plasma glucose > or = 5.1 mmol/l, 1-hour value > or = 10.0 mmol/l or 2-hour value > or = 8.5 mmol/l. Based on current knowledge and randomized trials it is much more difficult to define glucose target levels during pregnancy. This difficulty has led to many different recommendations issued by diabetes societies. The Swiss Society of Endocrinology and Diabetes follows the arguments of the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) that self-blood glucose monitoring itself lacks precision and that there are very few randomized trials. Therefore, the target levels have to be easy to remember and might be slightly different in mmol/l or mg/dl. The Swiss Society for Endocrinology and Diabetes adopts the tentative target values of the IDF with fasting plasma glucose values < 5.3 mM and 1- and 2-hour postprandial (after the end of the meal) values of < 8.0 and 7.0 mmol/l, respectively. The last part of these recommendations deals with the therapeutic options during pregnancy (nutrition, physical exercise and pharmaceutical treatment). If despite lifestyle changes the target values are not met, approximately 25 % of patients have to be treated pharmaceutically. Insulin therapy is still the preferred treatment option, but metformin (and as an exception glibenclamide) can be used, if there are major hurdles for the initiation of insulin therapy.