Hannelore M. Götz

A cluster of acute hepatitis C virus infection among men who have sex with men : results from contact tracing and public health implications

Objective:An acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in an HIV-positive man who had sex with men (MSM) was notified. In the period of his seroconversion he was also diagnosed with a rectal lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) infection, and was part of a cluster of 15 LGV cases in 2003. Our aim was to investigate HCV transmission and to search for potential spread among sexual contacts and known LGV patients. Methods:Our case series included the index, two recent contacts, and 14 LGV cases. They were interviewed about parenteral exposure for HCV, history of sexually transmitted diseases(STDs), sexual behaviour and drug use. Laboratory investigations included anti-HCV antibodies, HCV-polymerase chain reaction, and HCV genotyping. Results:Seven out of 17 MSM recently seroconverted for HCV (41%). Three genotypes were found. Parenteral risk factors were excluded. Six out of seven had LGV proctitis coinciding with HCV seroconversion, six (86%) were HIV infected. Unprotected anal contact was practised by both HCV uninfected and infected cases. Unprotected active and passive fisting was reported by all seven HCV infected men, compared with two of nine uninfected men (P = 0.003). Non-intravenous drug use during sexual activities was common among all MSM. Numerous, often anonymous, sexual contacts in various European countries were reported. Conclusions:A cluster of acute HCV infection is reported among mostly HIV-positive MSM, with multiple partners throughout Europe. Sexual techniques potentially leading to mucosal damage (fisting), concomitant STDs such as LGV and drug use seem facilitating factors for spread. Extensive case finding and partner tracing is advocated as well as targeted prevention messages.

Effectiveness of yearly, register based screening for chlamydia in the Netherlands: controlled trial with randomised stepped wedge implementation

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of register based, yearly chlamydia screening. Design Controlled trial with randomised stepped wedge implementation in three blocks. Setting Three regions of the Netherlands: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and South Limburg. Participants 317 304 women and men aged 16-29 years listed on municipal registers at start of trial. Intervention From March 2008 to February 2011, the Chlamydia Screening Implementation programme offered yearly chlamydia screening tests. Postal invitations asked people to use an internet site to request a kit for self collection of samples, which would then be sent to regional laboratories for testing. Treatment and partner notification were done by the general practitioner or at a sexually transmitted infection clinic. Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were the percentage of chlamydia tests positive (positivity), percentage of invitees returning a specimen (uptake), and estimated chlamydia prevalence. Secondary outcomes were positivity according to sex, age, region, and sociodemographic factors; adherence to screening invitations; and incidence of self reported pelvic inflammatory disease. Results The participation rate was 16.1% (43 358/269 273) after the first invitation, 10.8% after the second, and 9.5% after the third, compared with 13.0% (6223/48 031) in the control block invited at the end of round two of the intervention. Chlamydia positivity in the intervention blocks at the first invitation was the same as in the control block (4.3%) and 0.2% lower at the third invitation (odds ratio 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.10)). No substantial decreases in positivity were seen after three screening rounds in any region or sociodemographic group. Among the people who participated three times (2.8% of all invitees), positivity fell from 5.9% to 2.9% (odds ratio 0.49 (0.47 to 0.50)). Conclusions There was no statistical evidence of an impact on chlamydia positivity rates or estimated population prevalence from the Chlamydia Screening Implementation programme after three years at the participation levels obtained. The current evidence does not support a national roll out of this register based chlamydia screening programme. Trial registration NTR 3071 (Netherlands Trial Register, www.trialregister.nl).

Paired measurements of quantitative hepatitis B virus DNA in saliva and serum of chronic hepatitis B patients: implications for saliva as infectious agent

BACKGROUND After intensive source and contact tracing 20 % of acute Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections remain unexplained. Saliva may be an unexpected vehicle of HBV DNA transmission. OBJECTIVE To further explore this hypothesis we evaluated the quantitative levels of HBV DNA in saliva and compared these with the HBV DNA levels measured in serum. STUDY DESIGN Serum and saliva were collected from 27 chronic HBV patients attending our outpatient clinic. RESULTS There were 16 men and 11 women; 15 patients were HBeAg positive, anti-HBe negative and 11 patients were HBeAg negative, anti-HBe positive. One patient was HBeAg and anti-HBe negative. Samples of serum and saliva were collected on the same day. All saliva specimens were clear on inspection. HBV DNA in serum was measured by the Digene Hybrid Capture II microplate assay (Digene Diagnostics), the HBV Monitor assay (Roche Diagnostics) as well as an in-house developed HBV DNA TaqMan assay. The HBV DNA TaqMan assay was used for the quantitative measurement of HBV DNA in saliva. Median HBV DNA levels in serum were 2.10 x 10(5) geq/ml and ranged from 373 genome equivalents per ml (geq/ml) to 4.13 x 10(9) geq/ml; median HBV DNA levels in saliva were 2.27 x 10(4) geq/ml and ranged from 373 geq/ml to 9.25 x 10(6) geq/ml. A clear correlation was shown between HBV DNA in serum and saliva; log HBV DNA in saliva=1.01 + 0.56 x (log HBV DNA in serum). CONCLUSIONS this is the first report of precise quantitative measurements of HBV DNA levels in saliva and the relationship with HBV DNA levels in serum. Our findings show that saliva is a source of HBV DNA. This finding may have implications in selected patients for the infectivity of saliva and offer further insight in the routes of transmission of HBV infection.

Rationale, design, and results of the first screening round of a comprehensive, register-based, Chlamydia screening implementation programme in the Netherlands

BackgroundImplementing Chlamydia trachomatis screening in the Netherlands has been a point of debate for several years. The National Health Council advised against implementing nationwide screening until additional data collected from a pilot project in 2003 suggested that screening by risk profiles could be effective. A continuous increase in infections recorded in the national surveillance database affirmed the need for a more active approach. Here, we describe the rationale, design, and implementation of a Chlamydia screening demonstration programme.MethodsA systematic, selective, internet-based Chlamydia screening programme started in April 2008. Letters are sent annually to all 16 to 29-year-old residents of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and selected municipalities of South Limburg. The letters invite sexually active persons to login to http://www.chlamydiatest.nl with a personal code and to request a test kit. In the lower prevalence area of South Limburg, test kits can only be requested if the internet-based risk assessment exceeds a predefined value.ResultsWe sent invitations to 261,025 people in the first round. One-fifth of the invitees requested a test kit, of whom 80% sent in a sample for testing. The overall positivity rate was 4.2%.ConclusionsThis programme advances Chlamydia control activities in the Netherlands. Insight into the feasibility, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and impact of this large-scale screening programme will determine whether the programme will be implemented nationally.

Acceptability of the internet-based Chlamydia screening implementation in the Netherlands and insights into nonresponse

Background: The study assessed the acceptability of internet-based Chlamydia screening using home-testing kits among 16- to 29-year-old participants and nonparticipants in the first year of a Chlamydia Screening Implementation program in the Netherlands. Methods: Questionnaire surveys were administered to randomly selected participants (acceptability survey) and nonparticipants (nonresponse survey) in 3 regions of the Netherlands where screening was offered. Participants received email invitations to an online survey; nonparticipants received postal questionnaires. Both surveys enquired into opinions on the screening design, reasons for (non-) participation and future willingness to be tested. Results: The response rate was 63% (3499/5569) in the acceptability survey and 15% (2053/13,724) in the nonresponse survey. Primary motivation for participating in the screening was “for my health” (63%). The main reason for nonresponse given by sexually active nonparticipants was “no perceived risk of infection” (40%). Only 2% reported nonparticipation due to no internet access. Participants found the internet (93%) and home-testing (97%) advantages of the program, regardless of test results. Two-thirds of participants would test again, 92% via the screening program. Half of nonparticipants were appreciative of the program design, while about 1 in 5 did not like internet usage, home-testing, or posting samples. Conclusions: The screening method was highly acceptable to participants. Nonparticipants in this survey were generally appreciative of the program design. Both groups made informed choices about participation and surveyed low-risk nonparticipants accurately perceived their low-risk status. Although many nonparticipants were not reached by the nonresponse survey, current insights on acceptability and nonresponse are undoubtedly valuable for evaluation of the current program.

Reinfections, persistent infections, and new infections after general population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the Netherlands

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to determine the rate of new infections and reinfections or persistent infections with Chlamydia trachomatis to define appropriate screening intervals and to identify risk factors for reinfection. Design: This was a cross-sectional study among a subsample of participants in a population-based screening. Setting: This study was conducted in urban and rural areas in The Netherlands. Participants: A total of 21,000 15- to 29-year-old women and men were invited for home-based urine testing. One year after the study, a subsample of 299 participants were offered retesting. Main Outcome Measures: The authors studied the rate of infection with C. trachomatis. Serovar determination was used to potentially discriminate between new infections and reinfections or persistent infections. Results: Nine C. trachomatis infections were found among 187 responders (4.8% confidence interval, 1.7–7.9). The prevalence was 10.4% (5 of 48) in previous positives and 2.9% (4 of 139) in negatives. Three of 5 repeatedly positive participants were infected with a different C. trachomatis serovar. Conclusions: Our study indicates that infected persons found in a systematic, population-based screening should be rescreened within 1 year. Optimal screening intervals still need to be determined.

Genital Chlamydia Prevalence in Europe and Non-European High Income Countries : Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Accurate information about the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis is needed to assess national prevention and control measures. Methods We systematically reviewed population-based cross-sectional studies that estimated chlamydia prevalence in European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) Member States and non-European high income countries from January 1990 to August 2012. We examined results in forest plots, explored heterogeneity using the I2 statistic, and conducted random effects meta-analysis if appropriate. Meta-regression was used to examine the relationship between study characteristics and chlamydia prevalence estimates. Results We included 25 population-based studies from 11 EU/EEA countries and 14 studies from five other high income countries. Four EU/EEA Member States reported on nationally representative surveys of sexually experienced adults aged 18–26 years (response rates 52–71%). In women, chlamydia point prevalence estimates ranged from 3.0–5.3%; the pooled average of these estimates was 3.6% (95% CI 2.4, 4.8, I2 0%). In men, estimates ranged from 2.4–7.3% (pooled average 3.5%; 95% CI 1.9, 5.2, I2 27%). Estimates in EU/EEA Member States were statistically consistent with those in other high income countries (I2 0% for women, 6% for men). There was statistical evidence of an association between survey response rate and estimated chlamydia prevalence; estimates were higher in surveys with lower response rates, (p = 0.003 in women, 0.018 in men). Conclusions Population-based surveys that estimate chlamydia prevalence are at risk of participation bias owing to low response rates. Estimates obtained in nationally representative samples of the general population of EU/EEA Member States are similar to estimates from other high income countries.

Population prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the Netherlands. should asymptomatic persons be tested during Population-based chlamydia Screening also for gonorrhoea or only if chlamydial infection is found?

BackgroundScreening and active case finding for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) is recommended to prevent reproductive morbidity. However insight in community prevalence of gonococcal infections and co-infections with Neisseria gonorrhoea (NG) is lacking.MethodsNested study within a large population-based Chlamydia Screening Pilot among 21.000 persons 15–29 year. All CT-positive (166) and a random sample of 605 CT-negative specimens were as well tested for gonococcal infection.ResultsOverall Chlamydia prevalence in the Pilot was 2.0% (95% CI: 1.7–2.3), highest in very urban settings (3.2%; 95% CI: 2.4–4.0) and dependent of several risk factors. Four gonococcal infections were found among 166 participants with CT infection (4/166 = 2.4%; 95% CI: 0.1%–4.7%). All four had several risk factors and reported symptoms. Among 605 CT-negative persons, no infection with NG could be confirmed.ConclusionA low rate of co-infections and a very low community prevalence of gonococcal infections were found in this population based screening programme among young adults in the Netherlands. Population screening for asymptomatic gonococcal infections is not indicated in the Netherlands. Although co-infection with gonorrhoea among CT-positives is dependent on symptoms and well-known algorithms for elevated risks, we advise to test all CT-positives also for NG, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic.

Initial evaluation of use of an online partner notification tool for STI, called ‘suggest a test’: a cross sectional pilot study

Objectives Partner notification is crucial for sexually transmitted infection (STI) control. We developed Suggestatest.nl (SAT), an internet-based notification system for verified diagnoses of STI/HIV. Methods SAT uses email, short message service, postal letter or a gay dating site to notify sexual contacts. SAT was piloted at the Public Health STI clinics in two major cities in the Netherlands. We evaluated SAT from March to July 2012 by analysing SAT notifications linked with epidemiological data. Determinants for SAT use were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results Of 988 index clients receiving a SAT code, overall 139 (14%) notified through SAT, sending 505 notifications (median 2), 84% by text messaging and 15% by email; 88% non-anonymously. Of those intending to use SAT, 23% notified with SAT. Intention to use SAT was the only independent determinant of SAT use in heterosexuals and men who have sex with men. Among the 67 SAT users in Rotterdam, 56% (225/402) of their partners at risk were contactable, and 95% (213/225) of those were notified using SAT. 58% of SAT-notified partners accessed the SAT-website and 20% of them subsequently consulted the STI clinics. STI positivity in partners was lower in those notified by SAT (28% (32/116)) than in those with contact cards (45% (68/152); p<0.001). Conclusions Although the challenges posed by non-contactable partners are not solved by SAT, it is a valuable novel tool for notification of verified STI diagnoses by index patients and providers. In addition to current standard partner notification practice it suits a small number of clients, especially those reporting more than one partner.

Systematic selection of screening participants by risk score in a chlamydia screening programme is feasible and effective

Objectives Systematic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis by individual invitation can be optimised by filtering participants on risk profile, excluding people at no or low risk. The authors investigated this technique in a large-scale chlamydia screening programme in the Netherlands in one rural region where relatively low prevalence was expected (<2%). Methods Invitees were alerted by personal letter to log in to http://www.chlamydiatest.nl and fill in an 8-item questionnaire. Only invitees with sufficient score could proceed to request a test kit. The authors investigated the effect of selection on participation, positivity and acceptability in three screening rounds and on the number needed to invite and the number needed to screen. Results The selection led to exclusion of 36% of potential participants and a positivity rate of 4.8% among participants, achieving similar number needed to screen values in the rural and urban areas. Higher scores were clearly related to higher positivity rates. Persons who were excluded from participation did not have a lower response in the next round. The acceptability study revealed disappointment about exclusion of 30% of excluded participants but most approved of the screening set-up. Conclusions Systematic selection of screening participants by risk score is feasible and successful in realising higher positivity rates. A somewhat stricter selection could be applied in the rural and urban areas of the screening programme. Multiple-item selection with a cut-off total score may work better than, more commonly used, selection by single criteria, especially in low-risk populations. Acceptability of selection is high but could still be improved by better communication on expectations.