Periodic health examination, 1996 update: 2. Screening for chlamydial infections

H. Dele Davies, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Assistant Professor, Departments of Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and Pediatrics, University of Calgary; Elaine E.L. Wang, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, Head,
Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto

Objective
To update the 1984 recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination on the routine screening of asymptomatic patients for infection with Chlamydia trachomatis.

Burden of Suffering
Infection with C. trachomatis is the most common sexually transmitted disease (STD) in North America, causing infection in two to three times more people than Neisseria gonorrhoeae. In Canada, the incidence rate of C. trachomatis infection is estimated to be 216 per 100 000 people per year. Although there are no Canadian estimates of the associated cost of infection, in the United States there are more than 4 million infections each year, with an estimated cost in 1990 of $2.2 billion (US).  Most infections (60% to 80%) among women are asymptomatic, but the spectrum of symptoms includes mucopurulent cervicitis, endometritis, salpingitis, postabortal pelvic sepsis and perihepatitis.  Among men, the spectrum of symptoms caused by C. trachomatis includes urethritis, epididymitis and conjunctivitis.

Options
Screening, with the use of culture or nonculture tests, of the general population, of certain high-risk groups or of all pregnant women; or no routine screening.

Outcomes
Rates of asymptomatic and symptomatic chlamydial infection, perinatal complications, long-term complications of infection (i.e., pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility and ectopic pregnancy), coinfection with other sexually transmitted diseases, disease spread, hospital care, complications of therapy and costs of infection and of screening.

Evidence
A MEDLINE search of articles published from Jan. 1, 1983, to Dec. 31, 1995, was conducted by exploding the major MeSH heading chlamydial infections with the subheadings complications, diagnosis, drug therapy, economics, cost, epidemiology, etiology, history, microbiology, mortality, mass screening, prevention and control, therapy and transmission.

Values
The 13-member Task Force of experts in family medicine, geriatric medicine, pediatrics, psychiatry and epidemiology used an evidence-based method for evaluating the effectiveness of preventive health care interventions. Recommendations were not based on cost-effectiveness of options. Patient preferences were not discussed.

Background papers providing critical appraisal of the evidence and tentative recommendations prepared by the chapter author were pre-circulated to the members. Evidence for this topic was presented and deliberated upon in 1- to 2-day meetings. Consensus was reached on final recommendations.

Advice from reviewers and experts and recommendations of other organizations were taken into consideration.  Prevention of symptomatic disease and decreased overall costs were given high values.


Benefits, Harms, and Costs
The greatest potential benefits of screening asymptomatic patients for chlamydial infections are the prevention of complications, especially infertility and perinatal complications, and the prevention of disease spread. There is no evidence that screening of the general population for chlamydial infections leads to a reduction in complications, and screening may increase costs. However, there is evidence that annual screening of selected high-risk groups and of pregnant women during the first trimester is beneficial in preventing symptoms and reducing the overall cost resulting from infection.

Recommendations
Recommendation grade [A, B, C, D, E]  and level of evidence [I, II-1, II-2, II-3, III] are indicated after each recommendation. Citations in support of individual recommendations are identified in the guideline text.

Validation
This report was externally reviewed.  These recommendations are similar to those of the US Preventive Services Task Force and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Sponsors
The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care developed this guideline with funding from Health Canada and the National Health
Research Development Program.  Dr. Davies was supported in part by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society Lilly Fellowship.