Vulvovaginal-swab or first-catch urine specimen to detect Chlamydia trachomatis in women in a community setting?

Screening for chlamydia in women is widely recommended. We evaluated the performance of two nucleic acid amplification tests for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis in self-collected vulvovaginal-swab and first-catch urine specimens from women in a community setting and a strategy for optimizing the sensitivity of an amplified enzyme immunoassay on vulvovaginal-swab specimens. We tested 2,745 paired vulvovaginal-swab and urine specimens by PCR (Roche Cobas) or strand displacement amplification (SDA; Becton Dickinson). There were 146 women infected with chlamydia. The assays detected 97.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.1 to 99.2%) of infected patients with vulvovaginal-swab specimens and 91.8% (86.1 to 95.7%) with urine specimens. We tested 2,749 vulvovaginal-swab specimens with both a nucleic acid amplification test and a polymer conjugate-enhanced enzyme immunoassay with negative-gray-zone testing. The relative sensitivities obtained after retesting specimens in the negative gray zone were 74.3% (95% CI, 62.8 to 83.8%) with PCR and 58.3% (95% CI, 46.1 to 69.8%) with SDA. In community settings, both vulvovaginal-swab and first-catch urine specimens from women are suitable substrates for nucleic acid amplification tests, but enzyme immunoassays, even after negative-gray-zone testing, should not be used in screening programs.

Opportunistic and systematic screening for chlamydia: a study of consultations by young adults in general practice

BACKGROUND: Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydia infection is being introduced in England, but evidence for the effectiveness of this approach is lacking. There are insufficient data about young peoples' use of primary care services to determine the potential coverage of opportunistic screening in comparison with a systematic population-based approach. AIM: To estimate use of primary care services by young men and women; to compare potential coverage of opportunistic chlamydia screening with a systematic postal approach. DESIGN OF STUDY: Population based cross-sectional study. SETTING: Twenty-seven general practices around Bristol and Birmingham. METHOD: A random sample of patients aged 16-24 years were posted a chlamydia screening pack. We collected details of face-to-face consultations from general practice records. Survival and person-time methods were used to estimate the cumulative probability of attending general practice in 1 year and the coverage achieved by opportunistic and systematic postal chlamydia screening. RESULTS: Of 12 973 eligible patients, an estimated 60.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 58.3 to 62.5%) of men and 75.3% (73.7 to 76.9%) of women aged 16-24 years attended their practice at least once in a 1-year period. During this period, an estimated 21.3% of patients would not attend their general practice but would be reached by postal screening, 9.2% would not receive a postal invitation but would attend their practice, and 11.8% would be missed by both methods. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic and population-based approaches to chlamydia screening would both fail to contact a substantial minority of the target group, if used alone. A pragmatic approach combining both strategies might achieve higher coverage.

Partner notification of chlamydia infection in primary care: randomised controlled trial and analysis of resource use

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a practice nurse led strategy to improve the notification and treatment of partners of people with chlamydia infection. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 27 general practices in the Bristol and Birmingham areas. PARTICIPANTS: 140 men and women with chlamydia (index cases) diagnosed by screening of a home collected urine sample or vulval swab specimen. INTERVENTIONS: Partner notification at the general practice immediately after diagnosis by trained practice nurses, with telephone follow up by a health adviser; or referral to a specialist health adviser at a genitourinary medicine clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the proportion of index cases with at least one treated sexual partner. Specified secondary outcomes included the number of sexual contacts elicited during a sexual history, positive test result for chlamydia six weeks after treatment, and the cost of each strategy in 2003 sterling prices. RESULTS: 65.3% (47/72) of participants receiving practice nurse led partner notification had at least one partner treated compared with 52.9% (39/68) of those referred to a genitourinary medicine clinic (risk difference 12.4%, 95% confidence interval -1.8% to 26.5%). Of 68 participants referred to the clinic, 21 (31%) did not attend. The costs per index case were 32.55 pounds sterling for the practice nurse led strategy and 32.62 pounds sterling for the specialist referral strategy. CONCLUSION: Practice based partner notification by trained nurses with telephone follow up by health advisers is at least as effective as referral to a specialist health adviser at a genitourinary medicine clinic, and costs the same. Trial registration Clinical trials: NCT00112255.

Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infection

OBJECTIVES: To investigate epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic aspects of chlamydia screening in non-genitourinary medicine settings. METHODS: Linked studies around a cross-sectional population-based survey of adult men and women invited to collect urine and (for women) vulvovaginal swab specimens at home and mail these to a laboratory for testing for Chlamydia trachomatis. Specimens were used in laboratory evaluations of an amplified enzyme immunoassay (PCE EIA) and two nucleic acid amplification tests [Cobas polymerase chain reaction (PCR), Becton Dickinson strand displacement amplification (SDA)]. Chlamydia-positive cases and two negative controls completed a risk factor questionnaire. Chlamydia-positive cases were invited into a randomised controlled trial of partner notification strategies. Samples of individuals testing negative completed psychological questionnaires before and after screening. In-depth interviews were conducted at all stages of screening. Chlamydia transmission and cost-effectiveness of screening were investigated in a transmission dynamic model. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: General population in the Bristol and Birmingham areas of England. In total, 19,773 women and men aged 16-39 years were randomly selected from 27 general practice lists. RESULTS: Screening invitations reached 73% (14,382/19,773). Uptake (4731 participants), weighted for sampling, was 39.5% (95% CI 37.7, 40.8%) in women and 29.5% (95% CI 28.0, 31.0%) in men aged 16-39 years. Chlamydia prevalence (219 positive results) in 16-24 year olds was 6.2% (95% CI 4.9, 7.8%) in women and 5.3% (95% CI 4.4, 6.3%) in men. The case-control study did not identify any additional factors that would help target screening. Screening did not adversely affect anxiety, depression or self-esteem. Participants welcomed the convenience and privacy of home-sampling. The relative sensitivity of PCR on male urine specimens was 100% (95% CI 89.1, 100%). The combined relative sensitivities of PCR and SDA using female urine and vulvovaginal swabs were 91.8% (86.1, 95.7, 134/146) and 97.3% (93.1, 99.2%, 142/146). A total of 140 people (74% of eligible) participated in the randomised trial. Compared with referral to a genitourinary medicine clinic, partner notification by practice nurses resulted in 12.4% (95% CI -3.7, 28.6%) more patients with at least one partner treated and 22.0% (95% CI 6.1, 37.8%) more patients with all partners treated. The health service and patients costs (2005 prices) of home-based postal chlamydia screening were 21.47 pounds (95% CI 19.91 pounds, 25.99) per screening invitation and 28.56 pounds (95% CI 22.10 pounds, 30.43) per accepted offer. Preliminary modelling found an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (2003 prices) comparing screening men and women annually to no screening in the base case of 27,000 pounds/major outcome averted at 8 years. If estimated screening uptake and pelvic inflammatory disease incidence were increased, the cost-effectiveness ratio fell to 3700 pounds/major outcome averted. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive screening for chlamydia in women and men using home-collected specimens was feasible and acceptable. Chlamydia prevalence rates in men and women in the general population are similar. Nucleic acid amplification tests can be used on first-catch urine specimens and vulvovaginal swabs. The administrative costs of proactive screening were similar to those for opportunistic screening. Using empirical estimates of screening uptake and incidence of complications, screening was not cost-effective.

The Forgotten Archduke: The Funeral Monument for Ernest of Austria in Brussels

Archduke Ernest of Austria (1553–1595), second son of Emperor Maximilian II and younger brother of Emperor Rudolf II, was in his youth a possible candidate for the thrones of the Empire or the Spanish Kingdom. Instead, he became Governor-General of the Netherlands in 1593 and relocated to Brussels in 1594 where he was welcomed with lavish festivities as the bearer of hope and prosperity. Unfortunately, Ernest died only thirteen months later without having achieved any political success. His brother and successor Albert of Austria commissioned the funeral monument for Ernest in 1600 after it was settled that he would be buried in Brussels and not Vienna. Focusing on this monument, which draws stylistically from various dynasty-related models, it will be shown that Albert intended to use this monument – and thus his brother’s memoria – to make the Brussels Cathedral the primary location of Habsburg dynastic memory in the Low Countries.