SUPPLEMENT ARTICLE
Diagnosis and Management of Uncomplicated
Chlamydia trachomatis Infections in Adolescents
and Adults: Summary of Evidence Reviewed for
the 2015 Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Treatment Guidelines
William M. Geisler
Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Alabama at Birmingham
In preparation for the 2015 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Sexually Transmitted Diseases
(STD) Treatment Guidelines, the CDC convened an advisory group in 2013 to examine recent abstracts and
published literature addressing the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of STDs. This article summarizes
the key questions, evidence, and recommendations for the diagnosis and management of uncomplicated Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) infection in adolescents and adults that were considered in development of the 2015
CDC STD Treatment Guidelines. The evidence reviewed primarily focused on CT infection risk factors in
women, clinical significance of oropharyngeal CT detection, acceptability and performance of CT testing on
self-collected specimens in men, performance of CT point-of-care tests, efficacy of recommended and investigational CT infection treatments, and timing of test of cure following CT infection treatment in pregnant
women.
Keywords. chlamydia; diagnosis; management; CDC; guidelines.
Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) infection is the most
frequently reported bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the United States and remains highly prevalent,
with >1.4 million cases reported to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) annually [1].
Young age is a strong predictor of CT infection, with
the highest CT infection prevalence in persons <25
years of age [1]. Because the majority of CT infections
are asymptomatic, detection of infection often relies on
screening. The 2010 CDC Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Treatment Guidelines recommends annual
Correspondence: William M. Geisler, MD, MPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 703 19th St S, 242 Zeigler Research Bldg, Birmingham, AL 35294-0007
([email protected]).
Clinical Infectious Diseases® 2015;61(S8):S774–84
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious
Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail:
[email protected].
DOI: 10.1093/cid/civ694
S774
•
CID 2015:61 (Suppl 8)
•
Geisler
CT screening in all sexually active women 25 years of
age or younger and also older women with risk factors
(eg, those who have a new sex partner or multiple sex
partners) [2]. Benefits of CT screening in women have
been demonstrated in areas where screening programs
have reduced rates of pelvic inflammatory disease
(PID) [3, 4], a precursor of infertility, and recent literature suggests a continued decline in PID rates in the
United States [5].
The approach to the diagnosis and management of
uncomplicated CT infection in adolescents and adults
includes (1) CT testing using nucleic acid amplification
tests (NAATs); (2) treatment with CDC-recommended
therapy to reduce complications and prevent transmission to others; (3) treatment of sexual partners to
prevent reinfection of patients and complications in
patients and partners; (4) risk-reduction counseling;
(5) repeat CT testing a few months following treatment
to identify repeat infection; and (6) a test of cure (TOC)
in pregnant women at a minimum of 3 weeks following treatment to identify persisting or repeat infection so that repeat
treatment can be provided promptly to reduce risk for maternal
and neonatal morbidity.
Following release of the 2010 CDC STD Treatment Guidelines [2], unanswered questions and topics requiring further
study on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of uncomplicated CT infection remained. In preparation for the 2015
CDC STD Treatment Guidelines, the CDC convened an advisory group in 2013 to review evidence and make recommendations on the diagnosis and management of CT infections in
adolescents and adults. This article summarizes the key questions and evidence related to diagnosis and management of uncomplicated CT infection considered in the development of the
guidelines. The review and recommendations focused on key
questions with new evidence or those covering topics of higher
priority.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
A search of the literature from 6 November 2008 through 14
February 2013 was conducted using the PubMed/Medline computerized database of the US National Library of Medicine and
was limited to reports involving humans as subjects. The search
included the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms “Chlamydia Infections” and “Chlamydia” as well as the keywords
“chlamydia” and “chlamydial” in titles and abstracts (tiab).
The search yielded 2800 citations. A second search for the
same time period was conducted to identify publications that
had not yet been indexed in Medline. The search included the
terms “chlamydia” and “chlamydial” and was limited to publications in English. To eliminate many of the duplicate citations
from the initial search and to focus on the newest articles, the
phrase “NOT medline[sb]” was added to the search statement.
This omitted citations that were indexed in Medline that were
retrieved with the first search and retrieved those that had not
yet been indexed for Medline. This second search yielded 501
citations. Abstracts from national and international STD meetings were also reviewed. In addition, we reviewed selected articles that were previously identified in literature searches
performed for the 2006 and 2010 CDC STD Treatment
Guidelines [6, 7].
Articles solely discussing Chlamydia species other than CT,
lymphogranuloma venereum, or trachoma and those whose
study population did not include adolescents or adults were excluded. Citations were then selected and reviewed for key questions that could be addressed with new evidence or were
deemed of high priority. Articles were summarized in a table
of evidence with respect to study design, methodology, results,
and conclusions. The quality of the evidence and discussions
with expert consultants were then used to address key questions
and to formulate recommendations for the 2015 CDC STD
Treatment Guidelines. Below are the key questions addressed
at the meeting, the summary of evidence, and recommendations
for the guidelines.
RESULTS
Are There Any Clinical Studies of New Treatment Regimens for CT
Infection?
There were only 2 published studies since the literature review
performed for the 2010 CDC STD Treatment Guidelines [7]
that addressed new treatment regimens for CT infection, each
evaluating an antibiotic not approved by the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) at the time of the publication.
Ito et al prospectively evaluated sitafloxacin 100 mg twice
daily for 7 days for symptomatic nongonococcal urethritis
(NGU) in heterosexual men [8]. Of 33 men with CT detected
at baseline by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), clinical cure
(symptom resolution) and microbiological cure (by urine CT
PCR within 35 days of treatment) was reported in 89% and
100%, respectively. It is unclear how many subjects had repeat
CT testing at ≤21 days, whose results could be confounded by a
false-positive test result due to residual CT nucleic acids. Sitafloxacin is not currently available in the United States.
Geisler et al performed a double-blinded, multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) of WC2031 (doxycycline hyclate delayed-release 200 mg tablet) orally once daily for
7 days vs vibramycin 100 mg (generic doxycycline) orally
twice daily for 7 days for treatment of uncomplicated urogenital
CT infection in men and nonpregnant women [9]. Of 323 CTinfected evaluable subjects, microbial cure rates at the study day
28 visit by CT transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) (on
urine in men and a provider-collected vaginal swab in women)
were 95.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.3%–98.8%) for
WC2031 vs 95.2% (95% CI, 92.0%–98.4%) for vibramycin,
meeting noninferiority criteria. Nausea and vomiting occurred
less frequently in subjects treated with WC2031 (13% vs 21%
and 8% vs 12%, respectively). WC2031 received FDA approval
on 12 April 2013 as Doryx delayed-release 200 mg tablet.
Summary
Once-daily WC2013 (doxycycline 200 mg) for 7 days demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to twice-daily generic
doxycycline for 7 days for uncomplicated urogenital CT infection [9]. WC2031 could improve CT treatment adherence over
twice-daily doxycycline and may be better tolerated. A quinolone, sitafloxacin, demonstrated good efficacy in a small number
of CT-infected men with symptomatic NGU [8], but it is not
FDA approved nor available in the United States. It was recommended that doxycycline hyclate delayed-release 200 mg tablet
(Doryx) by mouth daily for 7 days be added as an alternative
Chlamydia Management and CDC Guidelines
•
CID 2015:61 (Suppl 8)
•
S775
therapy for uncomplicated urogenital CT infection in the 2015
CDC STD Treatment Guidelines.
What New Data Are Available on the Efficacy of Doxycycline and
Azithromycin Regimens for Treatment of Uncomplicated
Anogenital CT Infection?
Several studies published since the previous literature review [7]
have addressed efficacy of azithromycin and/or doxycycline for
uncomplicated anogenital CT infection. A longitudinal study of
repeated CT infection in a cohort of adolescent females by
Batteiger et al used CT PCR on cervical and vaginal swabs, analysis of behavioral data, and CT OmpA genotyping to determine
an estimated azithromycin efficacy of 92% in 318 evaluable genital CT infections [10]; the study did not evaluate doxycycline
and was not a clinical trial.
There were 4 publications addressing rectal CT infection
treatment [11–14], none of which were RCTs. Three were retrospective studies of azithromycin or doxycycline for rectal CT infection in asymptomatic men who have sex with men (MSM)
that reported estimated efficacy based on repeat rectal CT
NAAT [11–13]. Drummond et al reported an estimated azithromycin efficacy of 94% in 85 MSM, although the study was limited by the long interval until repeat CT PCR (45% had repeat
testing performed >12 weeks after azithromycin treatment)
[11]. Steedman et al reported an estimated azithromycin efficacy
of 87% in 68 MSM, but 8 of the 9 MSM with a repeat positive
CT PCR postazithromycin reported sexual activity between
treatment and repeat testing; in addition, 3 of 9 men with repeat
positive CT had their repeat test performed ≤21 days posttherapy, introducing the possibility of a false-positive CT NAAT
[12]. Elgalib et al reported an estimated doxycycline efficacy
of 98.8% in 165 MSM, although the study was limited in that
the majority of rectal CT–infected patients initially evaluated
were excluded from the efficacy analysis and there was a long
interval until repeat CT NAAT was performed (median 45
days) [13]. The fourth study of rectal CT therapy was a prospective observational study in MSM and women by Hathorn et al
in which 42 subjects receiving azithromycin and 40 receiving
doxycycline during different study phases had an estimated efficacy, adjusting for possible reinfection, of 79% and 100%, respectively, at 6 weeks posttherapy [14]. The study was limited
with a high loss-to-follow-up rate (about 50% of subjects),
and almost as many subjects received azithromycin during
the doxycycline treatment phase and were excluded from
analysis.
There were 3 publications addressing treatment of NGU due
to CT infection [15–17]. Takahashi et al performed a prospective study of azithromycin for NGU and reported 89% microbiological efficacy by urine PCR in 27 CT-infected subjects (81%
efficacy in symptomatic men and 100% in asymptomatic men),
but was limited in that all men with a repeat positive CT test had
S776
•
CID 2015:61 (Suppl 8)
•
Geisler
testing performed ≤14 days after therapy, introducing the possibility of a false-positive NAAT; doxycycline was not studied
[15]. There were 2 RCTs of azithromycin- vs doxycyclinecontaining regimens for symptomatic NGU in men that reported contradictory microbiological outcome results based on
urine TMA testing [16, 17]. Schwebke et al reported that in a
subanalysis of 111 CT-infected men, doxycycline had a significantly higher microbiological TOC than azithromycin (95% vs
77%, P = .01) [16]. In contrast, Manhart et al reported that in a
subanalysis of 101 CT-infected men, the microbiological TOC
did not significantly differ between doxycycline and azithromycin regimens (90% vs 86%, P = .56) [17]. A key methodological
difference between the 2 studies was that the timing of TOC was
earlier in the Schwebke et al study than the Manhart et al study
(as early as 15 days vs 3 weeks), which could have increased the
possibility of a false-positive NAAT. It is uncertain whether timing of CT nucleic acid clearance differs following azithromycin
vs doxycycline therapy.
The only RCT specifically for urogenital CT identified in this
literature review was the Geisler et al RCT of WC2031 (doxycycline hyclate delayed-release 200 mg tablet) vs vibramycin discussed earlier in this review, which reported a microbiological
CT TOC by TMA in men and women treated with these regimens of 95.5% vs 95.2%, respectively; azithromycin was not
studied [9]. There was a previous double-blinded RCT of azithromycin vs doxycycline for urogenital CT in women by Hillis
et al that used PCR (on urine and endocervical specimens) to
evaluate microbiological TOC at 4 weeks after treatment initiation in 196 women, 98 in each treatment arm, and they reported
that the microbiological TOC collected was not significantly
different for azithromycin vs doxycycline (95% vs 96%, respectively) [18].
Summary
The only 2 RCTs directly comparing doxycycline vs azithromycin for CT infection since the last literature review [7] were in
CT-infected subsets of men with symptomatic NGU and had
contradictory results [16, 17]. A previous RCT of azithromycin
vs doxycycline for uncomplicated urogenital CT infection in
women that used PCR for TOC showed high microbiological
cure rates for both azithromycin and doxycycline that were similar [18]. It was thought there was insufficient new evidence on
the efficacy of azithromycin and doxycycline regimens for
urogenital CT infection to suggest changes to the CDC CT
treatment recommendations. Non-RCTs evaluating the efficacy
of azithromycin or doxycycline for rectal CT infection had
major limitations, but did raise some concern about the efficacy
of azithromycin for rectal CT infection. It was recommended
that text be added to the 2015 CDC STD Treatment Guidelines
that raised the concern about the efficacy of azithromycin for
rectal CT infection, but also acknowledged that these studies
had limitations and that a RCT for rectal CT infection was
needed.
What New Data Are Available on the Clinical Manifestations,
Natural History, Transmissibility, and Treatment of Oropharyngeal
CT Infection?
There had been insufficient previous data on whether oropharyngeal (OP) CT infection caused any clinically significant
disease, the natural history and transmission risk of OP CT
infection, and OP CT infection treatment outcomes with doxycycline or azithromycin. Since the previous literature review
[7], there have been several studies in men and/or women
screened for CT by OP NAAT, which have reported that persons with OP CT infection detected usually do not have OP
symptoms [19–25], and select studies have reported that the
OP CT prevalence in persons undergoing screening is low (usually <2%) [24, 25]. However, symptomatic OP CT infection may
occur in some persons, as reported in 2 studies. Karlsson et al
reported that 2 of 48 (4.2%) persons seen in primary care for
evaluation of OP discomfort for >14 days had OP CT detected
by NAAT without another identifiable bacterial cause, although
OP testing for viruses was not performed [22]. Tipple et al reported that of 41 MSM and women with OP CT detected by
TMA performed at a genitourinary medicine clinic, 2 (4.8%)
had OP symptoms [25]. There was only 1 study identified in
the current literature review that evaluated the natural history
of OP CT infection in the interval between initial OP CT screening and returning for treatment (at which time OP CT testing
was repeated). Apewokin et al found that 1 of 2 (50%) subjects
with OP CT infection identified at previous screening had spontaneous resolution of infection (based on negative repeat OP CT
NAAT and culture at the time of treatment) [19]. There was an
earlier study by Hamasuna et al that reported 6 of 18 (33.3%) sex
workers had spontaneous clearance of OP CT (based on negative
repeat OP CT NAAT at the time of treatment) [26]. These 2 studies suggest that OP CT infection can spontaneously resolve without treatment, as has been reported for genital CT infections [27],
but sample sizes in the 2 studies were too small to more precisely
estimate the spontaneous resolution frequency.
New evidence from 2 publications supported the notion that
OP CT can be transmitted to the genital tract, emphasizing the
importance of treating OP CT if detected. Marcus et al reported
that of 227 heterosexual men whose only urethral exposure was
fellatio in the prior 3 months, 8 (3.5%) had urethral CT detected
by urine TMA [28]. Similarly, Bernstein et al reported that of
397 MSM whose only urethral exposure was fellatio in the
prior 3 months, 19 (4.8%) had urethral CT detected by urine
TMA, and urethral CT positivity was higher in human immunodeficiency virus–infected individuals (16% vs 3%) [29]. Both
studies enrolled patients from a San Francisco STD clinic
among whom condom use was very rare.
Three studies were identified that evaluated OP CT infection
treatment outcomes with a doxycycline or azithromycin regimen
[20, 22, 30]. Wikström et al reported that all 8 women and 1 heterosexual man treated with a doxycycline regimen (200 mg day 1, then
100 mg daily for 8 days) for OP CT infection had a negative repeat
OP CT strand displacement amplification (SDA); the timing of repeat testing was not provided [20]. Karlsson et al reported that 2
subjects (a man and woman) with OP CT infection were evaluated
following doxycycline therapy, with 1 subject having a clinical cure
and the other subject not having a clinical cure but having a negative repeat OP CT NAAT; the doxycycline regimen and timing of
repeat testing were not provided [22]. Ota et al retrospectively evaluated OP treatment outcomes in 88 MSM with OP CT diagnosed
at a men’s clinic in Toronto who were treated with either azithromycin (n = 46) or doxycycline (n = 42) [30]. Of 70 who returned
for TOC by NAAT, 3 (4.3%) had a positive TOC, 2 who had received azithromycin and 1 who had received doxycycline; denominator data for the proportion of these 70 MSM who received each
regimen were not provided. The 2 subjects receiving azithromycin
with a positive TOC initially had a negative TOC at 2–3 weeks followed by a positive TOC at 3–4 weeks, suggesting reinfection rather
than treatment failure. The single subject receiving doxycycline
with a positive TOC had their positive TOC at both the first and
second TOC time points, suggesting possible treatment failure.
Summary
Available evidence suggests that most OP CT infections are
asymptomatic and some may resolve spontaneously without
treatment. Studies suggest that OP CT is transmissible to genital
sites [28, 29], which justifies treating patients who have OP CT
detected, irrespective of presence of symptoms. However, because studies have demonstrated that OP CT prevalence is
very low with routine OP CT screening, routine OP CT screening is not justified in most clinical settings. Published data on
use of azithromycin or doxycycline regimens for OP CT infections are insufficient to recommend one regimen over the other.
It was recommended to update the text in the 2015 CDC STD
Treatment Guidelines to stress that (1) OP CT infection is mostly
asymptomatic and because the OP prevalence is usually low, routine OP CT screening is not recommended; (2) because it may be
transmissible, OP CT should be treated if identified, which could
limit transmission of OP CT infection to anogenital sites; and (3)
because of the uncertainty in the efficacy of treatment regimens for
OP CT infection, OP CT should be treated with either the azithromycin or doxycycline regimen recommended for urogenital CT.
How Well Does CT NAAT Perform on Self-collected
Oropharyngeal, Penile, and Rectal Specimens in Men, and What
Is the Acceptability of Self-collecting From These Sites?
Self-collection of specimens for CT NAAT can further facilitate
CT screening, especially in settings where examinations are
Chlamydia Management and CDC Guidelines
•
CID 2015:61 (Suppl 8)
•
S777
less feasible. In women, self-collected vaginal swabs are CDCrecommended specimens for CT screening [2]. Since the
previous literature review [7], there have been several studies
focusing on self-collected specimens for CT testing in men,
including OP, penile, and rectal specimens.
Three studies identified evaluated CT detection by TMA on
patient-collected vs provider-collected OP swabs [31–33], and 2
studies addressed acceptability of self-collecting OP specimens
[33, 34]. Sexton et al reported that 5 of 367 (1.4%) MSM had CT
detected from a patient- or provider-collected OP swab, with all
5 MSM with CT-positive OP specimens having CT detected
from patient-collected swabs vs only 3 of 5 detected from provider-collected OP swabs [31]. Alexander et al reported that 8 of
265 (3%) MSM had CT detected from a patient- or providercollected OP swab, with 3 OP CT-positive MSM having CT detected from both the patient- and provider-collected swabs
whereas the remaining 5 OP CT-positive results were detected
by just 1 of the swabs (3 by the provider-collected swabs and 2
by the patient-collected swabs) [32]. Freeman et al reported that
in 480 MSM who underwent OP CT testing by TMA on self- vs
clinician-collected OP swabs, there was 99.4% agreement in results of the 2 testing methods; OP CT was detected in only 1.3%
[33]; from an acceptability survey, they also reported that 92% of
subjects were willing to self-collect an OP swab at home, 54%
had no preference between self- vs clinician-collected strategy,
and the majority agreed or strongly agreed that instructions
were easy and the specimen was easy to collect. Feasibility
and acceptability of MSM self-sampling for OP and rectal
STIs was evaluated by Wayal et al, in which 301 subjects seen
at a genitourinary medicine clinic were offered OP and rectal
self-sampling options and then were provided with a questionnaire [34]. For up to 274 subjects with complete questionnaire
data, feasibility and acceptability of self-sampling with OP gargle and mouth pad was higher than for OP swabs (92% and 96%
vs 76%, respectively), and self-sampling with rectal swabs was
acceptable to 82%. Despite some discomfort, 76% were willing
to use all 4 self-sampling methods, and 84% found home sampling acceptable. Two earlier studies evaluated CT detection by
NAAT on self-collected OP rinse compared with a providercollected OP swab [26, 35]: Papp et al evaluated OP CT TMA
on mouthwash, oral water rinse, and provider-collected OP
swabs in 561 MSM and found that 8 (1.4%) had OP CT detected, with all 8 detected from all 3 specimen types; mouthwash
and oral water rinse had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity
of ≥99.7%, and self-collection of mouthwash and OP water
rinse specimens were highly acceptable [35]. Hamasuna et al
evaluated OP CT PCR on oral wash vs provider-collected OP
swab in 18 female sex workers with a recent CT PCR–positive
OP swab and 48 heterosexual men with a recent CT PCR–positive urine sample [26]. In sex workers, 11 of 18 (61%) had CT
detected from oral wash vs 8 of 18 (44%) by OP swab. In males,
S778
•
CID 2015:61 (Suppl 8)
•
Geisler
5 of 48 (10%) had CT detected by oral wash vs 3 of 48 (6%) by
OP swab. None of the above 5 studies evaluating CT detection
from self-collected OP specimens used a second CT NAAT for
confirming the positive CT NAAT reported.
Two studies were identified that evaluated CT detection from
self-collected penile meatal swabs [36, 37]. Dize et al evaluated
CT detection by TMA on a self-collected meatal flocked swab
(tip of swab placed at meatal opening) vs urine specimen in
634 men, of which CT was detected from 81 (12.8%) by swab
vs 66 (10.4%) by urine; 86 (13.6%) were classified as being
CT infected based on both specimens being CT positive or 1
specimen CT positive and confirmed by NAAT with a different
TMA target [36]. Cherneskey et al evaluated CT detection by
TMA on a self-collected meatal swab(s) (tip of swab inserted
into urethra and rotated) vs urine specimen in 511 men who
were enrolled into 1 of 2 groups: Group A self-collected a meatal
Aptima swab and urine, while group B self-collected a meatal
Aptima swab, a meatal flocked swab, and urine [37]. Subjects
were classified as being CT infected based on 2 specimens
being CT positive or 1 specimen CT positive and confirmed
by NAAT with a different TMA target. In group A, 20 of 293
(6.8%) were CT infected, and the Aptima swab detected more
CT than urine (18 [90%] vs 17 [85%]) and had a higher sensitivity than urine (90% vs 85%). In group B, 20 of 218 (9.1%)
were CT infected, and the Aptima and flocked swab both detected 17 (85%), which was more than urine (16 [80%]);
swabs again had a higher sensitivity than urine (85% vs 80%).
They also evaluated acceptability and reported that 63% of men
preferred urine over meatal swab, but most had no difficulty
collecting the swab. Results from these 2 studies were contradictory to results from 2 earlier studies [38, 39]. Moncada et al evaluated CT detection by TMA and SDA from a self-collected
meatal Dacron swab collected by 1 of 2 methods (method 1:
tip of swab rolled over meatus vs method 2: swab inserted
into urethra) vs urine in 882 MSM providing these samples
[38]. They found that the sensitivity of the meatal swab ranged
from 56% to 61% by SDA and 59%–68% by TMA; CT prevalence by urine was 12.2% and classification of CT infection
was based on a positive urine NAAT or 2 positive NAATs on
the meatal specimen (1 could be an alternate TMA target).
Raherison et al reported similar findings in a subset of 344
men who provided a self-collected glans swab (no details on
technique) and urine for CT testing by PCR, with sensitivity
on those specimens being 67% vs 89%, respectively [39].
Seven studies were identified that evaluated CT detection
from self-collected rectal swabs [31, 32, 38, 40–43], and acceptability of self-collecting a rectal swab was evaluated in 5 studies
[34, 40–43]. The Sexton et al study discussed above also evaluated patient- vs provider-collected rectal swabs and found that
35 (12.7%) subjects were classified as having rectal CT infection,
with all 35 CT-positive subjects identified by patient-collected
rectal swab vs only 32 identified by provider-collected rectal
swab [31]. The Alexander et al study discussed above also evaluated patient- vs nurse-collected rectal swabs and found that
using as gold standard the routine rectal swab tested by SDA,
35 of 258 (13.6%) had rectal CT infection [32]. Rectal swab
CT test results for patient- vs nurse-collected rectal swabs
were concordant in 246 of 258 (95.3%) patients; sensitivity
for rectal CT was higher for self- vs nurse-collected swabs
(91.4% vs 80%), and specificity was high (>98%) for both.
Van der Helm et al evaluated CT NAATs (mostly PCR) on
self- and provider-collected rectal swabs in 901 women and
1411 MSM [40]. CT detection in provider- vs self-collected
swabs was comparable for women (9.4% vs 9.3%) and MSM
(10.8% vs 10.5%). Self- and provider-collected swabs were concordant for CT in 98% of women and MSM, and sensitivity was
slightly higher for provider- vs self-collected rectal swabs in
MSM (92% vs 89%) and women (90% vs 89%). They also reported that the majority of MSM (57%) and women (62%) preferred
self-collected rectal swabs, and 97% of subjects would visit the
clinic again if self-collected swabs were routine. These 3 studies
reported a slightly higher sensitivity for the self-collected rectal
swab than the earlier study by Moncada et al that reported a
sensitivity of 82% for self-collected rectal swabs tested by
TMA [38], and all found comparable NAAT performance on
self- vs provider-collected rectal swabs. Two small prospective
studies by Dodge et al evaluated CT detection by PCR on
self-collected rectal swabs from men offered the swab at a variety of clinic- and field/community-based venues [41, 42]. One
study evaluated 75 MSM and found that of the 62 MSM who
self-collected a rectal swab and agreed to have CT testing performed, 5 (8%) were CT positive [41]. Similarly, the other study
evaluated 75 bisexual men and of 58 men who collected a rectal
swab and agreed to testing, and 6 (10.3%) were CT positive [42].
Neither study evaluated a provider-collected swab. Both studies
evaluated feasibility; 1 study reported that all subjects providing
rectal swabs would agree to have rectal testing in the future and
given the option, most would prefer self-collection at home [41],
whereas the other study found that subjects collecting swabs reported acceptability and comfort with the process, yet reported
privacy as the main concern [42]. The Wayal et al study evaluated
feasibility and acceptability of MSM self-collecting rectal swabs,
and the results were discussed above [34]. Finally, Templeton
et al retrospectively evaluated 239 asymptomatic MSM seen at
a sexual health men’s clinic in Sydney who were offered the option of self-collected rectal swabs for rectal CT testing by NAAT
[43]. Of 177 (74%) subjects who self-collected a rectal swab, 6
(3.4%) were CT positive; data on subjects who may have had
rectal CT testing on both self- and clinician-collected rectal
swabs were not provided. Rectal swabs were self-collected
more often in subjects seen for a return (vs first visit), seen by
a nurse (vs doctor), and reporting any casual partners (vs none).
Summary
There is limited evidence that self-collected OP specimens may
be suitable alternatives to provider-collected OP swabs for OP
CT testing and are acceptable to patients, but more studies
are needed on NAAT performance on self-collected OP specimens. There is contradictory evidence on NAAT performance
on self-collected meatal swabs, and more studies are needed on
NAAT performance on self-collected meatal specimens and patient acceptability of self-collecting meatal specimens. Good evidence is shown that NAATs perform as well on self-collected
rectal swabs as provider-collected swabs, and studies support
self-collection of rectal swabs is acceptable to patients. It was
recommended that consideration should be given to adding in
the 2015 CDC STD Treatment Guidelines that a self-collected
rectal swab is an alternative to provider-collected rectal swab
for CT NAAT, especially when rectal exam is not feasible or
not preferred by the patient.
Are There New Data on Repeat Chlamydia Screening in Pregnant
Women During the Third Trimester of Pregnancy?
CT screening is recommended at the first prenatal visit for all
pregnant women, and repeat screening during the third trimester is recommended for women aged <25 years or those at increased risk. Since the previous literature review [7], there have
been 2 additional studies published that evaluated CT rescreening during the third trimester [44, 45] and another study that
evaluated results of 1 or more repeat CT tests following the
first prenatal visit CT test [46]. Aggarwal retrospectively evaluated CT prevalence pre- and postpartum in adolescent women
with genital specimens tested for CT (test not noted) and found
that CT was detected at the prenatal visit in 30 of 211 (14%), at a
third trimester rescreening in 6 of 173 (3.5%), and postpartum
(about 6 weeks) in 3 of 161 (1.9%) [44]. Of the 6 (20%) women
with CT detected at the prenatal visit who returned for a 2-week
TOC, all 6 (100%) had a positive CT test (suggesting most likely
treatment failure or a false-positive test). Hood et al retrospectively evaluated CT detection by DNA probe on a cervical swab
at a first prenatal visit vs retesting at 34–36 weeks of gestation in
181 women ≤25 years of age [45]. They reported that 6 of 181
(3.3%) were CT positive at the first prenatal visit, and CT detection at rescreening was as follows: Of the 175 CT-negative
women at the first prenatal visit, 5 (2.9%) were CT positive at
rescreening, while of the 6 CT positive at the first prenatal
visit, 1 (16.7%) was CT positive at rescreening (P > .05). Overall,
6 of 181 (3.3%) were CT positive at rescreening; CT positivity
was likely underestimated due to use of DNA probe. Blatt et al
extracted data from a large US laboratory database to retrospectively evaluate the first prenatal visit CT prevalence and CT retesting results in >1 million pregnant women, most (80%)
tested by NAAT (20% by DNA probe) [46]. CT screening
occurred at any prenatal visit in 59% and at the first prenatal
Chlamydia Management and CDC Guidelines
•
CID 2015:61 (Suppl 8)
•
S779
visit in 37%. CT screening rates were higher in younger women
and African Americans. CT prevalence was 3.5% at any visit and
2.7% at the first prenatal visit. Most CT rescreening occurred in
women with a positive CT test at their first prenatal visit vs those
CT negative at that time (78% rescreened vs 13%). CT was detected at any subsequent repeat screening test in 18% (6% at the last
repeat CT test) who were initially CT positive vs 2.2% at any subsequent repeat CT test (1.2% at the last repeat CT test) in those
initially CT negative. A subanalysis of women 16–25 years of age
with an initial CT negative test who underwent repeat screening
during pregnancy revealed that 3.4% had a subsequent positive
repeat CT test. CT microbiological TOC was performed in 33%
of those CT positive at the first prenatal visit within 6 weeks, and
15% had CT detected at TOC. A major study limitation was that
the gestational period at the time of the subsequent repeat CT
testing visits was not provided or could not be determined.
These 3 studies did not provide information on risk factors for
CT detection at rescreening during the third trimester other
than 2 of the studies evaluating the association with CT positivity
at the first prenatal visit [45, 46].
Summary
Two recent publications reported CT positivity rates in the
3.3%–3.5% range on repeat CT screening in pregnant adolescent
and young adult women during the third trimester [44, 45], and 2
studies reported higher positivity rates at repeat CT testing later
in pregnancy in patients who were CT infected at the first prenatal visit CT screening test, although significance of difference was
not reported in 1 study [46] and not significant in the other [45].
The studies did not otherwise provide new information on risks
associated with CT positivity identified at repeat testing later in
pregnancy. It was thought that there was insufficient new evidence to change the current recommendation for repeat CT
screening during the third trimester in women aged <25 years
or those at increased risk for CT infection. However, it was suggested to provide text and references in the 2015 CDC STD Treatment Guidelines acknowledging findings from newer studies
supporting this retesting recommendation.
Are There New Data on Timing of Repeat CT Testing After
Treatment Using NAAT for Evaluating Test of Cure?
TOC following CT treatment is only routinely recommended
for CT-infected pregnant women, and the recommended timing for repeat TOC is 3–4 weeks after completing therapy [2].
However, timing of CT TOC by NAAT is also highly relevant
to CT treatment trials. The concern of testing too early following treatment is a false-positive CT NAAT due to detection of
residual CT nucleic acids from dead organisms, whereas the
concern for delaying testing too long is the risk for repeat CT
exposure from a CT-infected partner leading to a positive
TOC that may represent reinfection rather than treatment
S780
•
CID 2015:61 (Suppl 8)
•
Geisler
failure. Since the previous literature review [7], 2 studies have
been published that evaluated timing of CT nucleic acid clearance after treatment [47, 48]. Renault et al used TMA to evaluate
CT ribosomal RNA (rRNA) clearance from vaginal swabs selfcollected by up to 61 urogenital NAAT CT-positive adolescent
women at 4 time points within 2 weeks of single-dose azithromycin 1 g treatment [47]. CT rRNA was detected in 54 of 61
(88%) at day 3, 33 of 61 (54%) at day 7, 21 of 61 (34%) at
day 10, and 13 of 61 (21%) at day 14. Multilinear regression
analysis predicted full CT rRNA clearance at day 17, but no testing was performed beyond 14 days. Dukers-Muijrers et al used
PCR and TMA to evaluate CT DNA and rRNA clearance, respectively, from cervicovaginal and anogenital specimens
from 46 CT-infected women and anogenital specimens from
6 CT-infected MSM at 6 time points between 23–51 days
after azithromycin [48]. They reported that CT rRNA or
DNA was detected at posttreatment day 23, 26, 30, 37, 44,
and 51 in 14%, 20%, 16%, 17%, 22%, and 24%, respectively;
overall, 25 of 59 (42%) baseline infections were detected again
at least once between 23 and 51 days posttreatment. There was
substantial inter- and intraindividual variation over time and by
NAAT, with most CT nucleic acids being detected intermittently (ie, at different time points often with interval-negative CT
NAAT results), which could represent repeat infections or repeat CT nucleic acid exposure and, less likely, persisting CT infection. Four earlier studies also evaluated CT nucleic acid
clearance after CT treatment [49–52]. Morré et al used PCR
and real-time nucleic acid sequence–based amplification to
evaluate clearance of CT DNA and rRNA, respectively, from
cervical brushes (and urine in a subset) collected from 25 genital CT enzyme immunoassay–positive women weekly starting
from initiation of a 7-day course of doxycycline [49]. CT rRNA
was detected in 2 of 25 subjects and DNA in 21 of 25 at 1 week
after doxycycline initiation; no subjects had rRNA detected vs 6
of 21 being DNA positive at week 2; 5 of 20 DNA were positive at
week 3, and 1 of 6 DNA positive at week 4. Workowski et al used
PCR to evaluate clearance of CT DNA from anogenital swabs, collected from 20 women with anogenital CT infection, for 5 time
points up to 20 weeks starting from the initiation of doxycycline
[50]. They found that 10 of 20 subjects had CT DNA detected at 1
week (ie, end of doxycycline treatment), 3 of 20 DNA at 2 weeks,
and no DNA detected starting from the next scheduled visit at 4
weeks. Gaydos et al used PCR and ligase chain reaction (LCR) to
evaluate clearance of CT DNA from urine collected from 33 cervical CT-infected women for approximately every other day following completion of treatment with azithromycin 1 g (n = 26)
or a doxycycline 7-day course (n = 7) [51]. CT DNA was detected
as follows: (1) at 1–3 days posttreatment—PCR positive 40%, LCR
positive 73.3%; (2) 4–6 days posttreatment—PCR positive 21%,
LCR positive 37%; (3) 7–9 days posttreatment—PCR positive 25%,
LCRpositive13%;(4)10–12daysposttreatment—PCR positive 0%,
LCR positive 10%; (5) 13–15 days posttreatment—PCR positive
14%, LCR positive 0%; and (6) >16 days posttreatment—no
PCR- or LCR-positive specimens. Bianchi et al used PCR
and TMA to evaluate clearance of CT DNA and rRNA, respectively, from urine collected daily for 1 week after azithromycin
treatment in 14 CT-infected females and 5 CT-infected males
and also performed NAAT testing in a subset of 5 subjects who
returned at day 14 [52]. They found that all females were CT
DNA and rRNA negative by day 6, whereas in men there were
1 of 5 DNA positive and none rRNA positive by day 7; none of
the 5 patients tested at day 14 had CT DNA detected. Abstinence was addressed in only 3 of the published studies on timing of repeat CT testing after treatment [47, 48, 51].
Summary
There is considerable heterogeneity in the limited number of
studies evaluating CT nucleic acid clearance posttherapy, in
terms of sex, antibiotic treatment, timing of repeat CT NAAT,
evaluation of DNA or RNA, specimen type, and whether abstinence was addressed. Such differences make it challenging to
determine a precise estimate of CT nucleic acid clearance that
would be useful for CDC recommendations. Considering that
some studies reported that DNA or RNA could be detected in
a significant proportion of subjects at 2–3 weeks after treatment,
it seemed reasonable to continue the recommendation for the
upcoming 2015 CDC STD Treatment Guidelines that TOC be
performed in CT-infected pregnant women 3–4 weeks after
completing therapy.
Are New Data Available on CT Risk Factors in Women >25 Years
of Age That Could Help Guide CT Screening Recommendations in
This Population?
For women >25 years of age, the CDC recommends CT screening in those with CT risk factors (eg, those who have a new sexual partner or multiple partners) [2]. Since the previous
literature review [7], 2 studies have been published that evaluated CT risk factors in older women [53, 54], both analyzing data
from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES), which included a nationally representative sample
of persons who had CT NAAT (either LCR or SDA) performed
on urine. Torrone et al retrospectively evaluated predictors of
higher-weighted CT prevalence estimates in 3875 women 26–
39 years of age who participated in NHANES cycles 1999–
2010 [53]. They reported a CT prevalence of 1.2% in this age
group, and it significantly varied by race (highest in African
Americans at 2.5%), marital status (highest in women widowed/divorced/separated at 2.7% vs never married at 1.9% vs
married/living with a partner at 0.8%), education (highest in
those with less than a high school education or equivalent at
2%), sexual partner number (highest in those with ≥2 partners
in the last 12 months at 2.9%), and hormone use (highest in
women who never used oral contraceptives or Depo-Provera
at 3.4%). Beydoun et al retrospectively evaluated predictors
of higher weighted CT prevalence estimates in men and
women 20–39 years of age who participated in NHANES cycles
1999–2006 [54]. They reported that the CT prevalence was 1.3%
in 2311 women aged 25–39 years and significantly differed by
race (highest in African Americans at 3.1%), marital status
(highest in never married at 3% vs ever married at 1.1% vs cohabiting at 0.7%), and education (highest in those with less than
a high school education at 3%). Because of the low CT prevalence in older women evaluated in both studies, there may
have been insufficient power to detect some associations of patient characteristics with higher CT prevalence. Howard et al
previously presented findings from a cross-sectional study of
CT predictors in women 26–30 years of age at the 2008 National
STD Prevention Conference [55]. Among 1243 sexually active
women in this age group presenting to family planning clinics
in California, urogenital CT was detected in 39 (3.1%). The following were reported as CT infection predictors: The patient indicated that their sexual partner(s) possibly had concurrent
partners (ie, having sex with another partner[s] while still in
the relationship with the patient) in the past 3 or 12 months;
having more than 1 or 2 sexual partners in the past 3 or 12
months; having a bacterial vaginosis diagnosis, and having a
new sexual partner in the past 3 months. CT infection was negatively associated with being married and being in a stable relationship (married, engaged, or living with a partner). The
association of bacterial vaginosis with CT infection has been
previously reported [56, 57].
Summary
In summary, there remains limited literature published on predictors of CT infection in women >25 years. There were 2 new
studies published that evaluated CT predictors in a nationally
representative sample of older women [53, 54] and a study presented at a national meeting that evaluated CT predictors in
older women seen in family planning clinics [55]. Because of
the low CT prevalence in the populations studied, findings
from these studies should be considered as preliminary and ideally should be verified in other cohorts before adding them as
CT predictors in older women in the CDC STD Treatment
Guidelines, although expert consultants did feel it was appropriate to add the CT predictor of patients indicating their partner may have a concurrent partner, based on plausibility that it
was likely a CT infection risk factor.
Are New Data Available on the Performance and Costeffectiveness of CT POC Tests Compared With CT NAAT?
A CT POC test could provide the opportunity to treat CTinfected patients within minutes to an hour of undergoing CT
testing and before leaving the testing site, thereby ensuring that
Chlamydia Management and CDC Guidelines
•
CID 2015:61 (Suppl 8)
•
S781
CT-infected patients get treated. Such prompt treatment could
limit CT complications and CT transmission to others. However, CT POC tests have been limited by lower sensitivity than
NAAT. Since the previous literature review [7], there have
been 6 studies published on performance of commercially available CT POC tests [58–63]. Bandea et al evaluated the performance of the Biostar Chlamydia OIA (optical immunoassay)
POC test on cervical swabs compared with NAAT (TMA and
LCR) and culture and found that with CT NAAT (concordant
LCR and TMA) as the reference standard, OIA had a sensitivity
of 59.4% and specificity of 98.4% [58]. Sabidó et al evaluated the
performance of the Chlamydia test card POC test on cervical
swabs compared with CT PCR and found that with PCR as the
reference standard, the Chlamydia test card had a sensitivity of
62.9% and specificity of 99.6% [59]. Van Dommelen et al evaluated the performance of 3 CT POC tests on vaginal swabs compared with CT PCR and found that with CT PCR as the reference
standard, the sensitivities of the Handilab-C test, Biorapid CHLAMYDIA Ag test, and QuickVue Chlamydia test were 12%, 17%,
and 27%, respectively, whereas the specificities were 92%, 93.5%,
and 99.7%, respectively [60]. Van der Helm et al evaluated the
performance of the Chlamydia Rapid Test on vaginal swabs compared with CT TMA and found that with TMA as the reference
standard, the Chlamydia Rapid Test had a sensitivity of 41.2%
and specificity of 96.4%; they further stratified sensitivity by CT
load and found that the sensitivity of the Chlamydia Rapid Test
was 12.5% with a low CT load and 73.5% with a high CT load
[61]. Nadala et al evaluated the performance of the Chlamydia
Rapid Test on urine in men compared with CT PCR and
found that with PCR as the reference standard, the Chlamydia
Rapid Test had a sensitivity of 82.6% and specificity of 98.3%
[62]; however, women were not studied, and some authors were
affiliated with the Chlamydia Rapid Test manufacturer. Hislop
et al performed a systematic review through November 2008 of
the performance and cost-effectiveness of the Chlamydia Rapid
Test vs other CT POC tests using CT PCR as the reference standard [63]. Based on 13 studies reviewed, pooled performance estimates for the Chlamydia Rapid Test were sensitivity of 80% on
vaginal swabs and 77% on urine, with a specificity of 99% for both
specimen types. A comparator POC CT test, the Clearview Chlamydia test, had lower performance, with a sensitivity of 52% on
genital swabs combined (64% cervical only) and specificity of
97% on genital swabs. Both the Chlamydia Rapid Test and the
Clearview Chlamydia test were more costly than NAAT from a
health service perspective.
Since the previous literature review [7], 4 studies have been
published on the performance of investigational CT POC tests
[64–67]. Hesse et al evaluated the performance of 4 novel CT
POC prototypes in succession, each modified based on communication with the manufacturer, on vaginal and cervical swabs
compared with SDA [64]. The final CT POC prototype improved
S782
•
CID 2015:61 (Suppl 8)
•
Geisler
earlier problems but still had difficulties with readability of test
results. Due to the small sample size, earlier prototypes were
combined (A–B), as were later prototypes (C–D) for performance evaluation. With SDA as the reference standard, A–B
prototypes had a sensitivity of 38% for both samples and
specificity of 77% for cervical and 64% for vaginal specimens,
whereas C–D prototypes had a sensitivity of 80% for both samples and specificity of 37% for cervical and 25% for vaginal specimens (due to a high percentage of indeterminate and falsepositive results). Huang et al evaluated the performance and
modeled the cost-effectiveness of a novel CT POC test on cervical, vaginal, and urine specimens in women compared with
TMA and found that the sensitivity and specificity of the
novel POC CT test were 92.9% and 98.5%, respectively [65].
One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the CT POC test
would be favorable over NAAT if sensitivity were >87.1% and
test cost <$41.52. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness
ratio indicated that the POC strategy would save $28 in total
and avert 14 PID cases. Dean et al evaluated the performance
of a novel microfluidic multiplex PCR POC test on cervical
swabs compared with the Roche Amplicor NAAT (PCR) and
found that the sensitivity and specificity for the multiplex
assay was 91.5% and 100% vs 62.4% and 95.9% for NAAT; discordant results between the multiplex assay and NAAT were
evaluated using microfluidic Sanger sequencing [66]. Pearce
et al evaluated the performance of a novel CT POC test using
an electrochemical detection method on 306 samples previously pretyped as either CT positive (n = 107) or CT negative
(n = 199) by TMA or PCR and found that the sensitivity and
specificity for the novel POC test were 98.1% and 98.0%,
respectively [67].
Summary
In summary, studies continue to report unacceptably low sensitivities of commercial CT POC tests in women, and they will
not be recommended as CT screening tests in the upcoming
2015 CDC STD Treatment Guidelines. Recent studies reported
good performance of novel investigational CT POC tests that
appear promising [65–67].
Notes
Financial support. The author receives grant support from the
Alabama–North Carolina STD/HIV Training Prevention Center (grant
number 5U62PS003292-03) from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC).
Supplement sponsorship. This article appears as part of the supplement
“Evidence Papers for the CDC Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment
Guidelines,” sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Potential conflicts of interest. Author certifies no potential conflicts of
interest.
All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential
Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2013. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and
Human Services, 2014.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
2010; 59(RR-12):44–7.
3. Scholes D, Stergachis A, Heidrch FE, Andrilla H, Holmes KK, Stamm
WE. Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical
chlamydial infection. N Engl J Med 1996; 334:1362–6.
4. Kamwendo F, Forslin L, Bodin L, Danielsson D. Decreasing incidences
of gonorrhea- and chlamydia-associated acute pelvic inflammatory disease: a 25-year study from an urban area of central Sweden. Sex Transm
Dis 1996; 23:384–91.
5. Scholes D, Satterwhite CL, Yu O, Fine D, Weinstock H, Berman S.
Long-term trends in Chlamydia trachomatis infections and related outcomes in a U.S. managed care population. Sex Transm Dis 2012;
39:81–8.
6. Geisler WM. Management of uncomplicated Chlamydia trachomatis
infections in adolescents and adults: evidence reviewed for the 2006
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44:S77–83.
7. Geisler WM. Diagnosis and management of uncomplicated Chlamydia
trachomatis infections in adolescents and adults: evidence reviewed for
the 2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53:S92–8.
8. Ito S, Yasuda M, Seike K, et al. Clinical and microbiological outcomes in
treatment of men with non-gonococcal urethritis with a 100-mg twicedaily dose regimen of sitafloxacin. J Infect Chemother 2012; 18:414–8.
9. Geisler WM, Koltun WD, Abdelsayed N, et al. Safety and efficacy of
WC2031 versus vibramycin for the treatment of uncomplicated urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection: a randomized, double-blind,
double-dummy, active-controlled, multicenter trial. Clin Infect Dis
2012; 55:82–8.
10. Batteiger BE, Tu W, Ofner S, et al. Repeated Chlamydia trachomatis
genital infections in adolescent women. J Infect Dis 2010; 201:42–51.
11. Drummond F, Ryder N, Wand H, et al. Is azithromycin adequate treatment for asymptomatic rectal chlamydia? Int J STD AIDS 2011;
22:478–80.
12. Steedman NM, McMillan A. Treatment of asymptomatic rectal Chlamydia trachomatis: is single-dose azithromycin effective? Int J STD
AIDS 2009; 20:16–8.
13. Elgalib A, Alexander S, Tong CY, White JA. Seven days of doxycycline is
an effective treatment for asymptomatic rectal Chlamydia trachomatis
infection. Int J STD AIDS 2011; 22:474–7.
14. Hathorn E, Opie C, Goold P. What is the appropriate treatment for the
management of rectal Chlamydia trachomatis in men and women? Sex
Transm Infect 2012; 88:352–4.
15. Takahashi S, Matsukawa M, Kurimura Y, et al. Clinical efficacy of azithromycin for male nongonococcal urethritis. J Infect Chemother 2008;
14:409–12.
16. Schwebke JR, Rompalo A, Taylor S, et al. Re-evaluating the treatment of
nongonococcal urethritis: emphasizing emerging pathogens—a randomized clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52:163–70.
17. Manhart LE, Gillespie CW, Lowens MS, et al. Standard treatment
regimens for nongonococcal urethritis have similar but declining
cure rates: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56:
934–42.
18. Hillis SD, Coles FB, Litchfield B, et al. Doxycycline and azithromycin
for prevention of chlamydial persistence or recurrence one month
after treatment in women. A use-effectiveness study in public health settings. Sex Transm Dis 1998; 25:5–11.
19. Apewokin SK, Geisler WM, Bachmann LH. Spontaneous resolution of
extragenital chlamydial and gonococcal infections prior to therapy. Sex
Transm Dis 2010; 37:343–4.
20. Wikström A, Rotzén-Ostlund M, Marions L. Occurrence of pharyngeal
Chlamydia trachomatis is uncommon in patients with a suspected or
confirmed genital infection. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010; 89:78–81.
21. Peters RP, Nijsten N, Mutsaers J, Jansen CL, Morré SA, van Leeuwen
AP. Screening of oropharynx and anorectum increases prevalence of
Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection in female
STD clinic visitors. Sex Transm Dis 2011; 38:783–7.
22. Karlsson A, Österlund A, Forssén A. Pharyngeal Chlamydia trachomatis
is not uncommon any more. Scand J Infect Dis 2011; 43:344–8.
23. Wada K, Uehara S, Mitsuhata R, et al. Prevalence of pharyngeal Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae among heterosexual men
in Japan. J Infect Chemother 2012; 18:729–33.
24. Peters RP, Verweij SP, Nijsten N, et al. Evaluation of sexual historybased screening of anatomic sites for Chlamydia trachomatis and
Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection in men having sex with men in routine
practice. BMC Infect Dis 2011; 11:203.
25. Tipple C, Hill SC, Smith A. Is screening for pharyngeal Chlamydia trachomatis warranted in high-risk groups? Int J STD AIDS 2010;
21:770–1.
26. Hamasuna R, Hoshina S, Imai H, Jensen JS, Osada Y. Usefulness of oral
wash specimens for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis from high-risk
groups in Japan. Int J Urol 2007; 14:473–5.
27. Geisler WM. Duration of untreated uncomplicated genital Chlamydia
trachomatis infection and factors associated with chlamydia resolution:
a review of human studies. J Infect Dis 2010; 201:S104–13.
28. Marcus JL, Kohn RP, Barry PM, Philip SS, Bernstein KT. Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae transmission from the female oropharynx to the male urethra. Sex Transm Dis 2011; 38:372–3.
29. Bernstein KT, Stephens SC, Barry PM, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis and
Neisseria gonorrhoeae transmission from the oropharynx to the urethra
among men who have sex with men. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:1793–7.
30. Ota KV, Fisman DN, Tamari IE, et al. Incidence and treatment outcomes of pharyngeal Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis
infections in men who have sex with men: a 13-year retrospective cohort
study. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48:1237–43.
31. Sexton ME, Baker JJ, Nakagawa K, et al. How reliable is self-testing for
gonorrhea and chlamydia among men who have sex with men? J Fam
Pract 2013; 62:70–8.
32. Alexander S, Ison C, Parry J, et al. Self-taken pharyngeal and rectal
swabs are appropriate for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and
Neisseria gonorrhoeae in asymptomatic men who have sex with men.
Sex Transm Infect 2008; 84:488–92.
33. Freeman AH, Bernstein KT, Kohn RP, Philip S, Rauch LM, Klausner JD.
Evaluation of self-collected versus clinician-collected swabs for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae pharyngeal
infection among men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis 2011;
38:1036–9.
34. Wayal S, Llewellyn C, Smith H, et al. Self-sampling for oropharyngeal
and rectal specimens to screen for sexually transmitted infections: acceptability among men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Infect
2009; 85:60–4.
35. Papp JR, Ahrens K, Phillips C, Kent CK, Philip S, Klausner JD. The use
and performance of oral-throat rinses to detect pharyngeal Neisseria
gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis infections. Diagn Microbiol
Infect Dis 2007; 59:259–64.
36. Dize L, Agreda P, Quinn N, Barnes MR, Hsieh YH, Gaydos CA. Comparison of self-obtained penile-meatal swabs to urine for the detection
of C. trachomatis, N. gonorrhoeae and T. vaginalis. Sex Transm Infect
2013; 89:305–7.
37. Chernesky MA, Jang D, Portillo E, et al. Self-collected swabs of the urinary meatus diagnose more Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections than first catch urine from men. Sex Transm Infect
2013; 89:102–4.
38. Moncada J, Schachter J, Liska S, Shayevich C, Klausner JD. Evaluation
of self-collected glans and rectal swabs from men who have sex with
men for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae
Chlamydia Management and CDC Guidelines
•
CID 2015:61 (Suppl 8)
•
S783
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
by use of nucleic acid amplification tests. J Clin Microbiol 2009;
47:1657–62.
Raherison S, Peuchant O, Clerc M, et al. Glans swabs are not appropriate specimens for diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in
asymptomatic men. J Clin Microbiol 2009; 47:2686.
van der Helm JJ, Hoebe CJ, van Rooijen MS, et al. High performance
and acceptability of self-collected rectal swabs for diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in men who have sex with
men and women. Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36:493–7.
Dodge B, Van Der Pol B, Rosenberger JG, et al. Field collection of rectal
samples for sexually transmitted infection diagnostics among men who
have sex with men. Int J STD AIDS 2010; 21:260–4.
Dodge B, Van Der Pol B, Reece M, et al. Rectal self-sampling in nonclinical venues for detection of sexually transmissible infections among
behaviourally bisexual men. Sex Health 2012; 9:190–1.
Templeton DJ, Wang Y, Higgins AN, Manokaran N. Self-collected anal
swabs in men who have sex with men: minimal benefit of routine perianal examination. Sex Transm Infect 2011; 87:204.
Aggarwal A, Spitzer RF, Caccia N, Stephens D, Johnstone J, Allen L. Repeat screening for sexually transmitted infection in adolescent obstetric
patients. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010; 32:956–61.
Hood EE, Nerhood RC. The utility of screening for chlamydia at 34–36
weeks gestation. W V Med J 2010; 106:10–1.
Blatt AJ, Lieberman JM, Hoover DR, Kaufman HW. Chlamydial and
gonococcal testing during pregnancy in the United States. Am J Obstet
Gynecol 2012; 207:55.e1–8.
Renault CA, Israelski DM, Levy V, Fujikawa BK, Kellogg TA, Klausner
JD. Time to clearance of Chlamydia trachomatis ribosomal RNA in
women treated for chlamydial infection. Sex Health 2011; 8:69–73.
Dukers-Muijrers NH, Morré SA, Speksnijder A, van der Sande MA,
Hoebe CJ. Chlamydia trachomatis test-of-cure cannot be based on a single highly sensitive laboratory test taken at least 3 weeks after treatment.
PLoS One 2012; 7:e34108.
Morré SA, Sillekens PT, Jacobs MV, et al. Monitoring of Chlamydia trachomatis infections after antibiotic treatment using RNA detection by
nucleic acid sequence based amplification. Mol Pathol 1998; 51:149–54.
Workowski KA, Lampe MF, Wong KG, Watts MB, Stamm WE. Longterm eradication of Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection after antimicrobial therapy. Evidence against persistent infection. JAMA 1993;
270:2071–5.
Gaydos CA, Crotchfelt KA, Howell MR, Kralian S, Hauptman P, Quinn
TC. Molecular amplification assays to detect chlamydial infections in
urine specimens from high school female students and to monitor the
persistence of chlamydial DNA after therapy. J Infect Dis 1998; 177:
417–24.
Bianchi A, Bogard M, Cessot G, Bohbot JM, Malkin JE, Alonso JM.
Kinetics of Chlamydia trachomatis clearance in patients with azithromycin,
as assessed by first void urine testing by PCR and transcription-mediated
amplification. Sex Transm Dis 1998; 25:366–7.
Torrone EA, Geisler WM, Gift TL, Weinstock HS. Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women 26–39 years of age in the United States,
1999–2010. Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40:335–7.
S784
•
CID 2015:61 (Suppl 8)
•
Geisler
54. Beydoun HA, Dail J, Tamim H, Ugwu B, Beydoun MA. Gender and age
disparities in the prevalence of Chlamydia infection among sexually active adults in the United States. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2010;
19:2183–90.
55. Howard H, Chow J, Deal M, Bauer H, Bolan G. Developing chlamydia
screening guidelines for women over age 25. In: Presented at the 2008
National STD Prevention Conference, Chicago, IL. Available at: https://
cdc.confex.com/cdc/std2008/webprogram/Paper14355.html. Accessed
8 April 2013.
56. Gallo MF, Macaluso M, Warner L, et al. Bacterial vaginosis, gonorrhea,
and chlamydial infection among women attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic: a longitudinal analysis of possible causal links. Ann
Epidemiol 2012; 22:213–20.
57. Brotman RM, Klebanoff MA, Nansel TR, et al. Bacterial vaginosis assessed by gram stain and diminished colonization resistance to incident
gonococcal, chlamydial, and trichomonal genital infection. J Infect Dis
2010; 202:1907–15.
58. Bandea CI, Koumans EH, Sawyer MK. Evaluation of the rapid BioStar
optical immunoassay for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in adolescent women. J Clin Microbiol 2009; 47:215–6.
59. Sabidó M, Hernández G, González V, et al. Clinic-based evaluation of a
rapid point-of-care test for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in specimens from sex workers in Escuintla, Guatemala. J Clin Microbiol 2009;
47:475–6.
60. van Dommelen L, van Tiel FH, Ouburg S, et al. Alarmingly poor performance in Chlamydia trachomatis point-of-care testing. Sex Transm
Infect 2010; 86:355–9.
61. van der Helm JJ, Sabajo LO, Grunberg AW, Morré SA, Speksnijder AG,
de Vries HJ. Point-of-care test for detection of urogenital chlamydia in
women shows low sensitivity. A performance evaluation study in two
clinics in Suriname. PLoS One 2012; 7:e32122.
62. Nadala EC, Goh BT, Magbanua JP, et al. Performance evaluation of a
new rapid urine test for chlamydia in men: prospective cohort study.
BMJ 2009; 339:b2655.
63. Hislop J, Quayyum Z, Flett G, Boachie C, Fraser C, Mowatt G. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rapid
point-of-care tests for the detection of genital chlamydia infection in
women and men. Health Technol Assess 2010; 14:1–97.
64. Hesse EA, Patton SA, Huppert JS, Gaydos CA. Using a rapid communication approach to improve a POC chlamydia test. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2011; 58:837–40.
65. Huang W, Gaydos CA, Barnes MR, Jett-Goheen M, Blake DR. Comparative effectiveness of a rapid point-of-care test for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis among women in a clinical setting. Sex Transm Infect
2013; 89:108–14.
66. Dean D, Turingan RS, Thomann HU, et al. A multiplexed microfluidic
PCR assay for sensitive and specific point-of-care detection of Chlamydia trachomatis. PLoS One 2012; 7:e51685.
67. Pearce DM, Shenton DP, Holden J, Gaydos CA. Evaluation of a novel
electrochemical detection method for Chlamydia trachomatis: application for point-of-care diagnostics. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2011;
58:755–8.