Screening on urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis

INTRODUCTION Around 92 million urogenital infections are caused yearly by Chlamydia trachomatis worldwide [1].The overall incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is increasing, as shown by the increases in the number of reported cases of syphilis and gonorrhea [2]. Chlamydia trachomatis infections are associated with various serious diseases in women, men and newborns, which could be, at least partially, avoided by means of early diagnosis and therapy. The Federal Joint Committee - responsible for decision-making concerning the benefit package of the German Social Health Insurance - has publicly announced the starting of deliberations on the issue of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The leading question to be answered is whether screening for Chlamydia trachomatis should be included in the German benefit basket. The aim of this report is to provide a summary of the available evidence concerning the issue of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis. METHODS The summary of published scientific evidence, including HTA reports, systematic reviews, guidelines and primary research is represented. The synthesis follows the structure given by the criteria of Wilson and Jungner [3] for the introduction of screening in a population: relevance of the condition, availability of an adequate test, effectiveness of screening, acceptance of the programme, and economical issues. A literature search was conducted for each aspect of the synthesis and the evidence has been summarised in evidence tables. RESULTS We identified five HTA reports from three European agencies [4], [5], [6], [7] and one from the USA [8]. In addition, we identified four guidelines from Northamerica[9], [10], [11], [12] and one from Europe [13]. A total of 56 primary research publications were included: relevance of the disease (n=26), availability of test (n=1), effectiveness of screening (n=11), acceptance of the programme (n=11), economical issues (n=7). DISCUSSION The main limitation of this report is that we relied only on published results. Most of research has been conducted in countries other than Germany. The fulfilment of the criteria for introduction of screening depends on contextual factors. More data from Germany are needed in order to answer the main questions concerning acceptance, use of selection criteria to identify subgroups and economical aspects of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Germany. CONCLUSIONS The criteria for introduction of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis are partially fulfilled. The available evidence indicates that the success of a screening programme for Chlamydia trachomatis will depend on the implementation of strategies for uptake enhancement and probably on the participation of men as well. A pilot project should be conducted in order to assess cost-effectiveness, acceptance and feasibility of different screening strategies in Germany. On the light of the available evidence, the inclusion of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the benefit basket without embedding it in a multifaceted programme targeting primary prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and participation in screening cannot be recommende.